Pentax-DA 14mm F2.8-opinions please

lesmore49 · 12-09-2009, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by zxaar

i bought this lense two days ago.

Could you post some image and 100% crop at center. Just trying get idea about how my lense is by comparing.
Any shot would do. Thanks.

PS: I will post something from it when i get familiar. Don't want put samples now, might give wrong ideas to people looking to buy.

I don't know how to post pictures on websites. I'm pretty well computer illiterate...I can post and email and that's about the extent of my dismal abilities.

Marc Sabatella · 12-09-2009, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by lesmore49

I don't know how to post pictures on websites.

It's not difficult. The best way overall is probably to go to a site like Welcome to Flickr - Photo Sharing and follow the links to sign up for a free account. But to just get an image or two posted for now onto this forum, the easiest way would be to click the "Manage Attachments" button below where you type your response. That brings up a dialog from which you can select images from your computer to attach to your post.

PrimeObjectif · 12-09-2009, 12:49 PM

Unless I overlooked it, nobody on this thread mentioned the DA 14's close focusing capability, which can make the lens very fun to use.

clawhammer · 12-09-2009, 01:13 PM

I have the DA 14, and it goes anywhere my K10 goes. It's one of my most-used lenses. It's got some funky distortion waves if you're shooting straight lines like architecture, and the corners can be soft, but other than that I love it. It is one solid hunk of lens. FWIW, almost all of the images in my slot canyon gallery were shot with the DA 14.

raider · 12-09-2009, 09:20 PM

A bit out of topic here...I lost the small "cap" thingy on the DA14 lens hood (the cap that covers the hole which allows u to stick your finger in to twist the CPL)...where can I buy that from?

Lodewijk · 12-10-2009, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by PrimeObjectif

Unless I overlooked it, nobody on this thread mentioned the DA 14's close focusing capability, which can make the lens very fun to use.

Yes this is what makes it my favourite lens

:

The 10-17mm fish eye can get even closer though, magnification ratios (from photozone.de):

DA 10-17mm fish eye 1:2.5
DA 14mm 1:5.3
DA 15mm 1:6.7
DA 12-24 1:8.3

audiobomber · 12-10-2009, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Lodewijk

The 10-17mm fish eye can get even closer though, magnification ratios (from photozone.de):

DA 10-17mm fish eye 1:2.5
DA 14mm 1:5.3
DA 15mm 1:6.7
DA 12-24 1:8.3

So does the 16-45mm, 1:4

calicojack · 12-10-2009, 04:57 PM

I was thinking about the "ultra" wide lens choices. I like the looks of the DA14 but I'm more inclined to zooms for the adjustable range. I've been thinking of that Sigma 10-20 but some of the reviews I've read gave me pause over the softness issue. Then I read about the Tamron 10-24 which is supposed to be much sharper. Does anyone here have any real world experience with that lens?

raider · 12-10-2009, 05:09 PM

Calicojack, are u referring to the sigma 10-20/f4-5.6 or 10-20/f3.5?

calicojack · 12-10-2009, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by raider

Calicojack, are u referring to the sigma 10-20/f4-5.6 or 10-20/f3.5?

My current wallet says it will need to be the F4-5.6 version. I understand that the 3.5 is supposed to be sharper (but way more $$$)

Andrew Faires · 12-10-2009, 08:28 PM

Just as an example of the 10-17 fisheye after corrections:

This was de-fished and perspective was adjusted in PTLens and is a blend of 3 exposures. It was shot at 15mm.

The extreme edges couldn't quite be corrected, but I suspect someone with better Post-processing skills could produce a much better result.

I did have the 14mm f/2.8 for a while. I found (compared to the 16-50), it had a warmer tone to it, whereas the 16-50 was more neutral in colour. The 14mm was quite sharp, but the 16-50 had a bit of an edge in that department as well at 16mm.

Andi Lo · 12-11-2009, 12:59 AM

In defense of the Sigma...

Sharp enough for me.... if the DA 12-24 is as good as i hear it is... then it will indeed be a better lens than the Sigma.

And I think close focusing is actually a common feature among the current generation wide angles... The Sigma doesnt go as close as the DA but it goes zooms to 20mm, so that may make up for it

The front looks a bit soft; I focused on the leaves

@Andrew: You did a better job than I ever did defishing the DA 10-17.... In fact I thought I would be able to make do using the DA as my wideangle, but I gave up trying to make it look rectilinear enough to my liking. Still love that lens though.

Pentaxor · 12-11-2009, 01:42 AM

I had been in a similar dilemma before. the DA14 has a stop advantage and a close-focusing capability over the DA12-24. size-wise, both the DA14 and DA12-24 are both big lenses, so there's no real advantage as to portability, except for the 12-24 being a zoom, it's barrel extends further, but not really a concern. IQ-wise, the 12-24 is just better than the DA14, uncharacteristic for a zoom lens. versatility-wise, the DA12-24 zoom cannot be underestimated nor deny it's luxury of use for covering an additional 12mm focal length.

speaking of the PTLens, it is a great tool for defishing fisheye lenses.

calicojack · 12-11-2009, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

In defense of the Sigma...

Sharp enough for me.... if the DA 12-24 is as good as i hear it is... then it will indeed be a better lens than the Sigma.

.

Andi,
Is your first "Sigma defense" photo straight from the camera as far as perspective is concerned? In other words, did you process it through any sort of defish / perspective control software? It looks pretty square and pretty sharp to my eye.
Thanks,
Brian

zxaar · 12-11-2009, 08:36 AM

today went to illuminaria , took just two photos. Not planned just snap shots. Took with 10-17mm fish eye at 10mm. This photo that i am posting is rotated and cropped from center.

resized to web size is

here is 100% crop from original:

photo was taken handheld at iso 3200.

i think i am impressed, because for this photo i just pointed the camera and took a snap, i was very busy talking to someone. Was not much interested in taking photo but just tried fisheye just to see how it does.

12-11-2009, 12:59 AM	#42
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	In defense of the Sigma... Sharp enough for me.... if the DA 12-24 is as good as i hear it is... then it will indeed be a better lens than the Sigma. And I think close focusing is actually a common feature among the current generation wide angles... The Sigma doesnt go as close as the DA but it goes zooms to 20mm, so that may make up for it The front looks a bit soft; I focused on the leaves @Andrew: You did a better job than I ever did defishing the DA 10-17.... In fact I thought I would be able to make do using the DA as my wideangle, but I gave up trying to make it look rectilinear enough to my liking. Still love that lens though. Last edited by Andi Lo; 12-11-2009 at 01:13 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 14mm F2.8 ED (IF)	PrimeObjectif	Sold Items	2	01-20-2010 08:54 AM
Pentax 14mm 2.8 OR 21mm 3.2	tgplains	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	12-23-2009 04:47 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8	frekcles	Sold Items	5	10-05-2009 09:39 AM

12-09-2009, 08:43 AM	#31
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,349 Original Poster	Originally posted by zxaar i bought this lense two days ago. Could you post some image and 100% crop at center. Just trying get idea about how my lense is by comparing. Any shot would do. Thanks. PS: I will post something from it when i get familiar. Don't want put samples now, might give wrong ideas to people looking to buy. I don't know how to post pictures on websites. I'm pretty well computer illiterate...I can post and email and that's about the extent of my dismal abilities.

12-09-2009, 12:40 PM	#32
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by lesmore49 I don't know how to post pictures on websites. It's not difficult. The best way overall is probably to go to a site like Welcome to Flickr - Photo Sharing and follow the links to sign up for a free account. But to just get an image or two posted for now onto this forum, the easiest way would be to click the "Manage Attachments" button below where you type your response. That brings up a dialog from which you can select images from your computer to attach to your post.

12-09-2009, 12:49 PM	#33
PrimeObjectif Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 599	Unless I overlooked it, nobody on this thread mentioned the DA 14's close focusing capability, which can make the lens very fun to use.

12-09-2009, 01:13 PM	#34
clawhammer Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Logan, Utah Photos: Gallery Posts: 971	I have the DA 14, and it goes anywhere my K10 goes. It's one of my most-used lenses. It's got some funky distortion waves if you're shooting straight lines like architecture, and the corners can be soft, but other than that I love it. It is one solid hunk of lens. FWIW, almost all of the images in my slot canyon gallery were shot with the DA 14.

12-09-2009, 09:20 PM	#35
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	A bit out of topic here...I lost the small "cap" thingy on the DA14 lens hood (the cap that covers the hole which allows u to stick your finger in to twist the CPL)...where can I buy that from?

12-10-2009, 02:44 PM	#36
Lodewijk Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Texel/Groningen, Netherlands Posts: 41	Originally posted by PrimeObjectif Unless I overlooked it, nobody on this thread mentioned the DA 14's close focusing capability, which can make the lens very fun to use. Yes this is what makes it my favourite lens : The 10-17mm fish eye can get even closer though, magnification ratios (from photozone.de): DA 10-17mm fish eye 1:2.5 DA 14mm 1:5.3 DA 15mm 1:6.7 DA 12-24 1:8.3

12-10-2009, 03:11 PM	#37
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Lodewijk The 10-17mm fish eye can get even closer though, magnification ratios (from photozone.de): DA 10-17mm fish eye 1:2.5 DA 14mm 1:5.3 DA 15mm 1:6.7 DA 12-24 1:8.3 So does the 16-45mm, 1:4

12-10-2009, 04:57 PM	#38
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	I was thinking about the "ultra" wide lens choices. I like the looks of the DA14 but I'm more inclined to zooms for the adjustable range. I've been thinking of that Sigma 10-20 but some of the reviews I've read gave me pause over the softness issue. Then I read about the Tamron 10-24 which is supposed to be much sharper. Does anyone here have any real world experience with that lens?

12-10-2009, 05:09 PM	#39
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	Calicojack, are u referring to the sigma 10-20/f4-5.6 or 10-20/f3.5?

12-10-2009, 05:42 PM	#40
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	Originally posted by raider Calicojack, are u referring to the sigma 10-20/f4-5.6 or 10-20/f3.5? My current wallet says it will need to be the F4-5.6 version. I understand that the 3.5 is supposed to be sharper (but way more $$$)

12-10-2009, 08:28 PM	#41
Andrew Faires Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ontario Posts: 744	Just as an example of the 10-17 fisheye after corrections: This was de-fished and perspective was adjusted in PTLens and is a blend of 3 exposures. It was shot at 15mm. The extreme edges couldn't quite be corrected, but I suspect someone with better Post-processing skills could produce a much better result. I did have the 14mm f/2.8 for a while. I found (compared to the 16-50), it had a warmer tone to it, whereas the 16-50 was more neutral in colour. The 14mm was quite sharp, but the 16-50 had a bit of an edge in that department as well at 16mm.

12-11-2009, 01:42 AM	#43
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	I had been in a similar dilemma before. the DA14 has a stop advantage and a close-focusing capability over the DA12-24. size-wise, both the DA14 and DA12-24 are both big lenses, so there's no real advantage as to portability, except for the 12-24 being a zoom, it's barrel extends further, but not really a concern. IQ-wise, the 12-24 is just better than the DA14, uncharacteristic for a zoom lens. versatility-wise, the DA12-24 zoom cannot be underestimated nor deny it's luxury of use for covering an additional 12mm focal length. speaking of the PTLens, it is a great tool for defishing fisheye lenses.

12-11-2009, 03:34 AM	#44
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	Originally posted by Andi Lo In defense of the Sigma... Sharp enough for me.... if the DA 12-24 is as good as i hear it is... then it will indeed be a better lens than the Sigma. . Andi, Is your first "Sigma defense" photo straight from the camera as far as perspective is concerned? In other words, did you process it through any sort of defish / perspective control software? It looks pretty square and pretty sharp to my eye. Thanks, Brian

12-11-2009, 08:36 AM	#45
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	today went to illuminaria , took just two photos. Not planned just snap shots. Took with 10-17mm fish eye at 10mm. This photo that i am posting is rotated and cropped from center. resized to web size is here is 100% crop from original: photo was taken handheld at iso 3200. i think i am impressed, because for this photo i just pointed the camera and took a snap, i was very busy talking to someone. Was not much interested in taking photo but just tried fisheye just to see how it does.