[bdery]

Really? I checked and I haven't found side by side image comparison between the DFA21 and the DFA1530.

You have to do some work yourself and pull up two web pages to view side by side

That's how all reviews are done, testing in exactly the same conditions, so they can all be compared together.

[normhead]

The second closeup image (21 ltd) is shot much closer than the first image (15-30), I can't conclude anything unless both images are taken with identical focal length and identical sensor-subject distance.

I provided evidence, you are looking for proof.

[biz-engineer]

Isn't the close focus ability of the 21 one of its perks? I realize there's not a massive difference, 11 inches compared to 7.

The 15-30 close focus is actually very close , closer than I imagined. It experimented with the 15-30 since Ricoh showed so many examples of close focus shots with the DFA21. I tried to do the same closeups with my 15-30, and I was surprised how good it is. But obviously it's hard to tell about the difference between 15-30 and 21 ltd special effect without side by side comparison of the two lenses, same subject.

[Jeff]

The 15-30 close focus is actually very close , closer than I imagined. It experimented with the 15-30 since Ricoh showed so many examples of close focus shots with the DFA21. I tried to do the same closeups with my 15-30, and I was surprised how good it is. But obviously it's hard to tell about the difference between 15-30 and 21 ltd special effect without side by side comparison of the two lenses, same subject.

The obvious answer is for you to buy the 21mm 2.4 and show us people who have neither! 😁

[biz-engineer]

The obvious answer is for you to buy the 21mm 2.4 and show us people who have neither! ��

Buying the 21 limited is very easy, I have the credit card. Finding a buyer if I don't want to keep that lens will be more difficult.

[normhead]

So let me get his straight. You are printing A0 and A1 and you can't compete with Fuji and Canon users shooting with more MP in actual comparisons?

Interesting since we can't tell the difference between our 12 MP, 16 MP, 24 MP and 36 MP prints printed 30x20".

But then, we compare at normal viewing differences, the distance where you can see the elements of the composition and how they interact.

With Topaz Giga pixel it would have been even better.

To be honest, after our resident print expert TonyT intimated that 600 DPI looks better than 300 DPI, and you can tell the difference from a normal viewing distance, I just gave up on the whole, MP needed for each print size discussion. It's an impossible bar to clear. Just make good compositions. That's what sells your work in any case.

This is easy to test, shoot a couple of panos that give you 60 MP, and do couple of test prints. I did a poster (36x24) using 80 MP files (scanned MF negatives, cut and pasted) 20 years ago. I've never felt it was worth the effort, and never did another one.

[biz-engineer]

Interesting since we can't tell the difference between our 12 MP, 16 MP, 24 MP and 36 MP prints printed 30x20".

I have 100+ prints, 20x30", 24x36 , 30x40, K200D, K5, K3 and K1, I can tell which camera was used just by looking at the prints.

[normhead]

I have 100+ prints, 20x30", 24x36 , 30x40, K200D, K5, K3 and K1, I can tell which camera was used just by looking at the prints.

I'd like to see you do it in a blind test. I can tell the difference if I already know which is which, you just find parts of the image that verify your bias.

Lots of people think they can do this. Lot's of people can swear on a stack of bibles they can do this. Very few are actually capable of doing it.

I can tell which pictures were which because of where they are taken, and I know what camera I used that day. There are lots of ways to tell that don't involve preferring one image over another.

Of course the really funny thing here is you just complained that the images I posted weren't same thing, same time for the comparison. Do you do the same for your own print comparisons? I'm sensing values supported by a double standard.

Don't get me wrong, buy whatever camera makes you happy. If you have more confidence with another system that will help you stay positive and your work will be more enjoyable. No sweat off my back. Just my personal opinion is that more MP is a rabbit hole not worth pursuing beyond 24 / 36 MP, but then, I heavily favour compositional excellence over ultra-high resolution.

I have on image as large as A0 and it was taken with a K-3. I owned the K-1 when it was taken, but I din't take it that day. It's an abstract and doesn't suffer at all from the low MP. Sunsets wouldn't suffer at all either. For wildlife and distance shooting the higher density pixels of the K-3 provide more subject resolution and less need to crop. Higher MP is not a universal solution to low IQ, especially given the reach advantage of smaller sensors.

So, I would have reservations about this strategy. But I'm curious to see how this might play out for you. Your sensibilities are far enough from mine, this might be good for you. The problem with relying on high MP cameras as part of your striving for excellence, is that someone else always has more. That can't be the kingpin in your drive for the best images, unless you are committed to maintaining it as new higher MP cameras are released.

[Digitalis]

Finding a buyer if I don't want to keep that lens will be more difficult.

Unlikely, very unlikely.

[gatorguy]

Buying the 21 limited is very easy, I have the credit card. Finding a buyer if I don't want to keep that lens will be more difficult.

No it won't. Mikesul's went within a day in our Marketplace after he used it a couple of weeks. Yours would too if discounted $200 or so. Use it for a month and consider it rental.

[Paul the Sunman]

DFA 21mm f/2.4 (left) and DFA 15-30 @ 21mm (right). Straight out of camera. Focused on the apex of the central cone. Nothing much to see here, except that the 15-30 has less CA in the white star on the bow of the ship at left. Overall, for this sort of landscape image, there isn't too much difference.

Click to zoom in Flickr.

f/2.4


f/2.8


f/4


f/8


f/11

[biz-engineer]

DFA 21mm f/2.4 (left) and DFA 15-30 @ 21mm (right)

Thanks a lot for the comparison shots. First impression is that there isn't a lot of difference. The DFA21 seems a little sharper in corners, although the 15-30 is focused further behind the center pole. It looks like the copy of DFA21 used in PF review wasn't a good copy, I seen much better sample images elsewhere and including yours in flickr. I think you have a good copy of the lens. So for a full frame lens , it rather a good one, especially at that focal length. The could be significant copy variation. I'd check for de-centering immediately after opening the box.

[Abbazz]

Here are two infinity shots taken a few seconds apart at f/5.6 from the same spot. I used a tripod and carefully focused manually on the building in the center of the frame using magnification in live view. The 15-30mm zoom was set to 21mm but its field of view is a bit wider than the D FA 21mm. You ca click on the pictures to load the full size image.

15-30mm at 21mm:



D FA 21mm:



In the center of the frame there is no real difference. But if we look at the borders, the 15-30mm exhibits field curvature so the edges of the frame are not sharp. It's much better at 15mm.

Both lenses are great but for me they are far from being perfect. The 15-30mm has some flaws at longer focal length and it's much too bulky for my taste. The new D Fa 21mm is optically superb but I don't like the fact it has no mechanical aperture. This makes it unusable on other brands cameras. I would have preferred a compact 20mm f/4, like an actualized version of the Pentax M 20mm F/4.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[house]

Here are two infinity shots taken a few seconds apart at f/5.6 from the same spot. I used a tripod and carefully focused manually on the building in the center of the frame using magnification in live view. The 15-30mm zoom was set to 21mm but its field of view is a bit wider than the D FA 21mm. You ca click on the pictures to load the full size image.

15-30mm at 21mm:



D FA 21mm:



In the center of the frame there is no real difference. But if we look at the borders, the 15-30mm exhibits field curvature so the edges of the frame are not sharp. It's much better at 15mm.

Both lenses are great but for me they are far from being perfect. The 15-30mm has some flaws at longer focal length and it's much too bulky for my taste. The new D Fa 31mm is optically superb but I don't like the fact it has no mechanical aperture. This makes it unusable on other brands cameras. I would have preferred a compact 20mm f/4, like an actualized version of the Pentax M 20mm F/4.

Cheers!

Abbazz

Thanks a lot for your test! In this set up the DFA21 blows the DFA1530 out of the water, not in the same league at the focused distance.

Do you think field curvature is what's causing the roof nearest to the camera to be sharper with the DFA1530? It looks like the center is comparable, with an edge to DFA21, but the DFA1530 is sharper in the lower foreground. Note quite the same at the edges. I can't quite figure it out.

[biz-engineer]

It looks like the center is comparable, with an edge to DFA21, but the DFA1530 is sharper in the lower foreground.

It looks like lenses aren't exactly focused at the same place which can show a big difference at close distance. Depth of field blur can change if one lens is focused a little closer.

---------- Post added 29-01-22 at 18:14 ----------

I don't like the fact it has no mechanical aperture. This makes it unusable on other brands cameras.

Ricoh seeing people switch to Sony using their Pentrax glass, Ricoh probably want to secure their future camera business by making it harder to adapt Pentax lenses on foreign mirrorless cameras. Or unless Ricoh are planning to make their own mirrorless cameras with an adapter that works with KAF4.