15mm ltd sighting

MSM · 02-03-2009, 12:06 PM

Does anyone know whether the built in hood completely retracks like the 35 and 77 mm? Also, anyone know the filter size? I hope it is a 49 mm.

audiobomber · 02-03-2009, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by MSM

Does anyone know whether the built in hood completely retracks like the 35 and 77 mm? Also, anyone know the filter size? I hope it is a 49 mm.

I'd like to know exactly what is known other than FL and F-stop.

A 49mm filter size would be awesome. I'd have five primes, all of which could fit the 49mm filters I'd buy.

**rparmar** · 02-03-2009, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by farfisa

He must have been pretty close to that pelican!

From the article: "As I was standing only 3 feet away from Harry"

Originally posted by ghost

I guess I need to own a Ltd to fully understand it.

No truer word spoken.

So far this lens is shaping up to be a more expensive prime version of the DA16-45 that lacks the "to 45mm" part.

I wish all the DA Limiteds were one stop faster. I'd certainly be willing to sacrifice some of the "engineered for rabbits" insane smallness to get faster glass. Given that the small FA Limiteds exist, certainly it should be possible to make equally fast lenses to cover the smaller sensor size.

farfisa · 02-03-2009, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

From the article: "As I was standing only 3 feet away from Harry"

Huh, guess I was distracted by the pretty pictures.

Originally posted by nostatic

Well, that would be an interesting question - whether distortion was fixed in post.

He wouldn't do that, would he? I forgive him the Leica love, but fixing distortion would be low!

clawhammer · 02-03-2009, 10:09 PM

Now, it begs the question: Is it FF compatible?

This lens may replace my DA 14 for canyoneering, if I can afford it. The small size and weight would be awesome. This, plus K-m, great small (relatively) inconspicuous setup.

Sean Nelson · 02-04-2009, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by clawhammer

Now, it begs the question: Is it FF compatible?

Below is a comparison of the DA 15mm vs. the full-frame SMC-K 15mm I bought many years ago. I highly doubt that the DA15 will provide full frame coverage...

**Just1MoreDave** · 02-04-2009, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Eaglerapids

...I may be weird but 15>21>28>31>43>50>77 makes sense:-). 15>28 or 31 is to big a jump, the 21 fits perfectly...

I am wondering if I can make 15>24>35>50 work. If the price is right I could sell enough duplicates to cover it.

audiobomber · 02-04-2009, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by soccerjoe5

That's a lot of lenses haha

I'm fine with the 15 > 21 > 35/40 > 70. Actually that's a lot of lenses for me!.

Originally posted by Just1MoreDave

I am wondering if I can make 15>24>35>50 work. If the price is right I could sell enough duplicates to cover it.

What I want is 15, 30, 55, 100.
What I'll probably end up with is 15, 28, 50, 100.
The cost of the 30 and 55 DA* primes could be an issue.

Marc Sabatella · 02-04-2009, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

What I'll probably end up with is 15, 28, 50, 100.

Then we'll be neighbors! :-) I'd be mostly carrying 15, 28, 40, 100. Although I do take my 50 instead of my 40 at times - and it makes more sense to do so just looking at the range of focal lengths - I just *like* the 40 a lot more. Bonus: it's close enough to the 28 that I don't actually switch between them as often as I might otherwise.

Looked at in that way, there's a certain perverse logic to adding the 15 at the wide end instead of the 21. The huge gap between the 15 and the 28 mimics the huge gap between my 40 (or 50) and the 100. It's like I have a three-band sweepable mid EQ: 15 for the low, 100 for the high, but I get to choose between 28, 40, or 50 for the middle band. Kind of...

Sean Nelson · 02-04-2009, 06:05 PM

Back in the film days I used to use 15 - 28 - 50 - 100. Each one was about double the previous - it was a great kit and served me very well. That SMC K 15mm f/3.5 was a lot to lug around, though (see photo above, and bear in mind that the whole thing is FILLED to the edges with glass).

I have the DA12-24 and it's a terrific lens - better than my SMC K 15mm. But it really isn't any smaller or lighter, and I'd love to get the DA15 for a lightweight walkaround.

That would give me 15 - 35 - 50 and sometimes 100. The DA35 macro is useful for when I want to shoot a close-up and the M 50/f1.4 works great when I want shallow DOF. And (if what I think about the DA15 is true) I'd have a bunch of lenses that share the same filter size, which cuts down on any filters I want to bring along.

I don't really expect a need for something in between 15 and 35 - if I really wanted to plug all the holes I'd just bring a zoom.

Alfisti · 02-04-2009, 06:40 PM

I must be the only one who just REALLY struggles with a wide angle prime. You're so screwed if it's too wide. The 12-24 is such a magic range i just can't see the small size of the 15 making up for it, never thought i'd say that.

jsherman999 · 02-04-2009, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

I must be the only one who just REALLY struggles with a wide angle prime. You're so screwed if it's too wide. The 12-24 is such a magic range i just can't see the small size of the 15 making up for it, never thought i'd say that.

I'm kinda in the same boat, the 12-24 IQ is just so great, and the FL range is versatile.

However, size matters more & more to me too - smaller=better. I get a real kick out of shooting the little M 20 f4 - the combo fits into my smallest bag, it's light for handhelds, and the ease at varifocal means I really don't even focus for most shooting I do with it - just set it at f/8, focus to infinity and snap away. The 15 kinda has the same appeal.

I guess I have to say that I don't really like the ACR conversion flow Ned used on those images, either that or the downsizing methodology was HS. I'd like to see the real images, I feel like the downsizing has lost too much detail and introduced artifacts. In some cases I also think contrast has suffered because of it. The best isn't being brought out of those images...

People, you gotta try K20D jpeg bright + picasa + flickr hosting/downsizing, I'm tellin' ya....

Anyway, very promising.

audiobomber · 02-04-2009, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

I must be the only one who just REALLY struggles with a wide angle prime. You're so screwed if it's too wide. The 12-24 is such a magic range i just can't see the small size of the 15 making up for it, never thought i'd say that.

Too wide doesn't bother me. I can just crop. Too narrow is worse.

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

The huge gap between the 15 and the 28 mimics the huge gap between my 40 (or 50) and the 100. It's like I have a three-band sweepable mid EQ: 15 for the low, 100 for the high, but I get to choose between 28, 40, or 50 for the middle band. Kind of...

I have a 28, 50 and 100, with a 35mm on the way. As a three-lens kit: 15 + normal + 100mm is very appealing.

zorobabel · 02-09-2009, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Blue

When traveling by air, the bigger bag option may be "limited." Been there done that too many times.

I'd be interested in your experience with this. Which bag was too big and which one was ok?
Thanks.

soccerjoe5 · 02-09-2009, 11:45 AM

I can't wait to get my hands on this lens. While I love longer focal lengths for landscapes, I've been missing my UWA lens for it.

02-04-2009, 07:55 PM	#43
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Alfisti I must be the only one who just REALLY struggles with a wide angle prime. You're so screwed if it's too wide. The 12-24 is such a magic range i just can't see the small size of the 15 making up for it, never thought i'd say that. Too wide doesn't bother me. I can just crop. Too narrow is worse. Originally posted by Marc Sabatella The huge gap between the 15 and the 28 mimics the huge gap between my 40 (or 50) and the 100. It's like I have a three-band sweepable mid EQ: 15 for the low, 100 for the high, but I get to choose between 28, 40, or 50 for the middle band. Kind of... I have a 28, 50 and 100, with a 35mm on the way. As a three-lens kit: 15 + normal + 100mm is very appealing. Last edited by audiobomber; 02-09-2009 at 09:27 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nature Eastern Bluebird - a very uncommon sighting	jpzk	Post Your Photos!	16	07-13-2010 05:08 PM
A Rare Sighting.	Mallee Boy	Post Your Photos!	4	11-29-2008 01:42 AM
What should be the maximum price for Pentax-A 15mm lens as the DA 15mm is coming up?	Mitch34	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-24-2008 04:40 PM
Pentax sighting in new movie.	sychen	Pentax News and Rumors	3	03-24-2008 07:29 AM
A rare sighting	Mile High	Post Your Photos!	13	09-25-2007 09:08 PM

02-03-2009, 12:06 PM	#31
MSM Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Alabama Photos: Gallery Posts: 994	Does anyone know whether the built in hood completely retracks like the 35 and 77 mm? Also, anyone know the filter size? I hope it is a 49 mm.

02-03-2009, 12:25 PM	#32
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by MSM Does anyone know whether the built in hood completely retracks like the 35 and 77 mm? Also, anyone know the filter size? I hope it is a 49 mm. I'd like to know exactly what is known other than FL and F-stop. A 49mm filter size would be awesome. I'd have five primes, all of which could fit the 49mm filters I'd buy.

02-03-2009, 01:42 PM	#33
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by farfisa He must have been pretty close to that pelican! From the article: "As I was standing only 3 feet away from Harry" Originally posted by ghost I guess I need to own a Ltd to fully understand it. No truer word spoken. So far this lens is shaping up to be a more expensive prime version of the DA16-45 that lacks the "to 45mm" part. I wish all the DA Limiteds were one stop faster. I'd certainly be willing to sacrifice some of the "engineered for rabbits" insane smallness to get faster glass. Given that the small FA Limiteds exist, certainly it should be possible to make equally fast lenses to cover the smaller sensor size.

02-03-2009, 01:53 PM	#34
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Originally posted by rparmar From the article: "As I was standing only 3 feet away from Harry" Huh, guess I was distracted by the pretty pictures. Originally posted by nostatic Well, that would be an interesting question - whether distortion was fixed in post. He wouldn't do that, would he? I forgive him the Leica love, but fixing distortion would be low!

02-03-2009, 10:09 PM	#35
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	Now, it begs the question: Is it FF compatible? This lens may replace my DA 14 for canyoneering, if I can afford it. The small size and weight would be awesome. This, plus K-m, great small (relatively) inconspicuous setup.

02-04-2009, 01:11 AM	#36
Sean Nelson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 353	Originally posted by clawhammer Now, it begs the question: Is it FF compatible? Below is a comparison of the DA 15mm vs. the full-frame SMC-K 15mm I bought many years ago. I highly doubt that the DA15 will provide full frame coverage...

02-04-2009, 02:05 PM	#37
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by Eaglerapids ...I may be weird but 15>21>28>31>43>50>77 makes sense:-). 15>28 or 31 is to big a jump, the 21 fits perfectly... I am wondering if I can make 15>24>35>50 work. If the price is right I could sell enough duplicates to cover it.

02-04-2009, 03:29 PM	#38
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by soccerjoe5 That's a lot of lenses haha I'm fine with the 15 > 21 > 35/40 > 70. Actually that's a lot of lenses for me!. Originally posted by Just1MoreDave I am wondering if I can make 15>24>35>50 work. If the price is right I could sell enough duplicates to cover it. What I want is 15, 30, 55, 100. What I'll probably end up with is 15, 28, 50, 100. The cost of the 30 and 55 DA* primes could be an issue.

02-04-2009, 05:00 PM	#39
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by audiobomber What I'll probably end up with is 15, 28, 50, 100. Then we'll be neighbors! :-) I'd be mostly carrying 15, 28, 40, 100. Although I do take my 50 instead of my 40 at times - and it makes more sense to do so just looking at the range of focal lengths - I just like the 40 a lot more. Bonus: it's close enough to the 28 that I don't actually switch between them as often as I might otherwise. Looked at in that way, there's a certain perverse logic to adding the 15 at the wide end instead of the 21. The huge gap between the 15 and the 28 mimics the huge gap between my 40 (or 50) and the 100. It's like I have a three-band sweepable mid EQ: 15 for the low, 100 for the high, but I get to choose between 28, 40, or 50 for the middle band. Kind of...

02-04-2009, 06:05 PM	#40
Sean Nelson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 353	Back in the film days I used to use 15 - 28 - 50 - 100. Each one was about double the previous - it was a great kit and served me very well. That SMC K 15mm f/3.5 was a lot to lug around, though (see photo above, and bear in mind that the whole thing is FILLED to the edges with glass). I have the DA12-24 and it's a terrific lens - better than my SMC K 15mm. But it really isn't any smaller or lighter, and I'd love to get the DA15 for a lightweight walkaround. That would give me 15 - 35 - 50 and sometimes 100. The DA35 macro is useful for when I want to shoot a close-up and the M 50/f1.4 works great when I want shallow DOF. And (if what I think about the DA15 is true) I'd have a bunch of lenses that share the same filter size, which cuts down on any filters I want to bring along. I don't really expect a need for something in between 15 and 35 - if I really wanted to plug all the holes I'd just bring a zoom.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2009, 06:40 PM	#41
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	I must be the only one who just REALLY struggles with a wide angle prime. You're so screwed if it's too wide. The 12-24 is such a magic range i just can't see the small size of the 15 making up for it, never thought i'd say that.

02-04-2009, 07:17 PM	#42
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Alfisti I must be the only one who just REALLY struggles with a wide angle prime. You're so screwed if it's too wide. The 12-24 is such a magic range i just can't see the small size of the 15 making up for it, never thought i'd say that. I'm kinda in the same boat, the 12-24 IQ is just so great, and the FL range is versatile. However, size matters more & more to me too - smaller=better. I get a real kick out of shooting the little M 20 f4 - the combo fits into my smallest bag, it's light for handhelds, and the ease at varifocal means I really don't even focus for most shooting I do with it - just set it at f/8, focus to infinity and snap away. The 15 kinda has the same appeal. I guess I have to say that I don't really like the ACR conversion flow Ned used on those images, either that or the downsizing methodology was HS. I'd like to see the real images, I feel like the downsizing has lost too much detail and introduced artifacts. In some cases I also think contrast has suffered because of it. The best isn't being brought out of those images... People, you gotta try K20D jpeg bright + picasa + flickr hosting/downsizing, I'm tellin' ya.... Anyway, very promising.

02-09-2009, 09:10 AM	#44
zorobabel Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 104	Originally posted by Blue When traveling by air, the bigger bag option may be "limited." Been there done that too many times. I'd be interested in your experience with this. Which bag was too big and which one was ok? Thanks.

02-09-2009, 11:45 AM	#45
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	I can't wait to get my hands on this lens. While I love longer focal lengths for landscapes, I've been missing my UWA lens for it.