Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada |
Depending on the camera you have chosen, the distortion that concerns you may not be an issue. The K-7 will distortion correct any of the lenses you cite. It's also a pretty easy fix in post processing, can be automated and honestly, so far I haven't had any issues with distortion from the 21. Having said that, I do most of my wide stuff in the wild, I don't spend a lot of time downtown.
Anyway, I went through more or less exactly what you went through, though I had the benefit of some manual focus lenses to help me along.
I already had an A20/2.8 and A24/2.8 when digital came into my life, and I discovered that like the 28mm focal length on film, I wasn't really enamoured with the 20 on digital (very similar FOV). At the same time, I found that more and more, my shooting style was evolving into the very field of view that didn't work for me on film, so I ended up buying a 21mm lens to get the benefits of autofocus and the better IQ of the newer glass (the 20 is a good lens, but falls a little short on digital).
However, what I realy wanted was something that would give me a similar field of view on digital that the A24/2.8 gave me on film. At the time, about the only option out there was the A15/3.5, so I ended up having one built for me (I figure they did it given the lead time from ordering to delivery).
Not such a great lens on digital, and it's big, but it was the best that was out there at the time.
When the 14/2.8 was released I bought one immediately to gain the benefit of AF and the IQ increase that the 14 would give.
It is a better lens on digital than the A15, but it is also just as big (not as heavy) as the A15.
Along the way I also picked up a 12-24 (good lens, but also a horse) and the fisheye zoom, whtever FL it is.
The 12-24 is also huge.
I like compact lenses. One of the things that drew me to Pentax in the first place was the M series lenses like the 40/2.8, 50/1.4 and 85/2. Good lenses, and seemingly half the size of similar lenses from Nikon or Canon.
I never fell in love with the 12-24, 14/2.8 or the A15/3.5. While they are all good lenses, they don't fit my photography style. I like primes more than zooms, and I like to carry as many as a dozen in my bag, and will put 4 or 5 in vest pockets when I am out for a walk.
Big lenses don't cut it for this sort of thing.
I couldn't have been happier when the 15/4 was released. It is a reasonably compact lens, matched very closely to the field of view of the 24mm, and it is a very good imager as well.
I sold my 14/2.8 to help finance the 15/4. In all the time I had the 14, I shot less than 75 pictures with it, all because I didn't like dealing with the size of it.
Both it and the 12-24 turned into special purpose lenses for me, only being taken with me when I knew they would be needed.
Considering that the A24mm was almost my default goto lens in the field, this was a sea change in my photography style, and was dictated not by a shift in interest, but rather a dislike of the equipment.
I've had the 15 for a while now, and can attest that it is a very good little lens, and it is easy to carry and use.
It also has a really cool lens cap, but all the Limiteds do.
I'm not sure if I could live without the 21, I get a surprising amout of use out of it, but at this point, I know I need the 15.
If size isn't an issue for you, the 12-24 is a very good choice. It has few bad habits and is very sharp.
It's the same speed as the 15, and only slightly slower than the 21.
For me, the 14/2.8 is a bit like the ugly girl at the prom. She may be a good dancer, but you don't really want to get that close.
If, like me, you just prefer primes, the combination of the 15mm and 21mm LTD lenses can't be beat.
Hope this helps.
|
Originally posted by jct us101 
Similar Threads 
