[UncleVanya]

Except those lenses weren't full of electronics, delicate sliding contacts and miniature motors ...

Nor the bodies.

[Wheatfield]

I have read that the Fujinon 16/2.8 actually has a 15mm field of view in the same way as the 23/2 is slightly wider at around 21 or 22mm. I can't confirm any of this of course. I have the 15mm and enjoy using it, though not too often as it's a bit of a speciality lens, so I expect that one day I'll buy the Fujinon as the widest lens I have for the X mount is only 18mm.

I have the 14/2.8 Fujinon. I love the thing.
All the Fuji lenses I have are amazing.

[aslyfox]

. . . Non-WR lenses can take a bit of rain, no problem. There weren't many WR film lenses back in the day and it didn't stop people. It's just a question of taking care.

back in the day

there were ways to use cameras and lenses in bad weather

ranging from DYI plastic bags to items you can buy

rain covers for cameras - Bing - Shopping

they still work

[Jonathan Mac]

Except those lenses weren't full of electronics, delicate sliding contacts and miniature motors ...

No, but they'd still start a small fungus farm inside them if enough moisture got in.

[kh1234567890]

No, but they'd still start a small fungus farm inside them if enough moisture got in.

Fungus needs something to feed on - usually some poor expired creature that had got in or a juicy crumb. It then grows filaments looking for more food.

[dbs]

Thankfully the 15 has a wide fov so it should be easier to spot those expired creatures ....... j/k

[Cerebum]

I found out what the purpose is













The purpose is to make me a very happy bunny indeed

[3by2]

Nice. I'm glad I've stumbled on this thread, I've been having a little internal debate about something wider than my 21 or da20-40 and wondered if the da15 really fulfilled that criteria, reading through has safely put that to bed. Might well get one if I can find one at the right price and to think 12 months ago I didn't have the 21 and thought that would be wide enough, only to find I used it extensively and wished I had something a bit wider.

[Cerebum]

Nice. I'm glad I've stumbled on this thread, I've been having a little internal debate about something wider than my 21 or da20-40 and wondered if the da15 really fulfilled that criteria, reading through has safely put that to bed. Might well get one if I can find one at the right price and to think 12 months ago I didn't have the 21 and thought that would be wide enough, only to find I used it extensively and wished I had something a bit wider.

I have been doing the single in with it this month and it is amazing. Its not quite as much of an all rounder as the 21mm but what it does, it does exceptionally well. My corner sharpness has been pretty good and front to back sharpness is exceptional. I don't regred buying it one bit. I got mine from MPB with a warranty. Its the SMC which makes for astonishing starbursts.

[hjoseph7]

It's not really a 15mm. On a cropped camera the focal length equivalent is about 22.5mm. the great thing about this lens is that distortions are kept to a minimal.

[deus ursus]

No. It's a 15 mm. Put it on a Pentax Q, it's still a 15 mm. Even used on a 645, it'd still be a 15 mm.

[Rondec]

It's not really a 15mm. On a cropped camera the focal length equivalent is about 22.5mm. the great thing about this lens is that distortions are kept to a minimal.

It is 15mm. Focal length doesn't change because of crop factor. You can say "I don't think 15mm is wide enough on APS-C..." but it certainly is still 15mm.

[Alex645]

It's not really a 15mm. On a cropped camera the focal length equivalent is about 22.5mm.

No. It's a 15 mm. Put it on a Pentax Q, it's still a 15 mm. Even used on a 645, it'd still be a 15 mm.

It is 15mm. Focal length doesn't change because of crop factor. You can say "I don't think 15mm is wide enough on APS-C..." but it certainly is still 15mm.

Thank goodness digital photography is completely metric otherwise we'd be having this never ending equivalency discussion about 19/32" is more like a 7/8" on a 59/64" sensor.

[photoptimist]

Thank goodness digital photography is completely metric otherwise we'd be having this never ending equivalency discussion about 19/32" is more like a 7/8" on a 59/64" sensor.

LOL!

Then avert your eyes around the video world with it's 1/2", 2/3", and 1" sensors. Worse than being non-metric, those standard dimensions are defined by the diameter of the vacuum tube that would be required to house the vidicon/plumbicon/saticon video circuits!

P.S. I once flummoxed a fellow engineer and devoted proponent of the Imperial system by trying to get him to explain the difference between pounds-force and pounds-mass.

[Serkevan]

P.S. I once flummoxed a fellow engineer and devoted proponent of the Imperial system by trying to get him to explain the difference between pounds-force and pounds-mass.

You monster