Pentax-DA 14mm F2.8-opinions please

Andi Lo · 12-11-2009, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by calicojack

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

It is straight from the camera, but the extreme corner distortion is pretty well hidden in this particular image. I'll post another tonight where it looks as if I used the fisheye and corrected it, but failed to do so on the corners (kind of like Alfisti's image)

The photozone review got it pretty spot on in regards to distortion with this lens

lesmore49 · 12-11-2009, 10:34 AM

I have a Pentax 50mm Macro F 2.8 coming in...ordered it new. I decided on the Macro rather than the 14 mm wide angle.

I have the Pentax 10-17 mm fisheye and the more I use this lens the more I'm amazed at it's super wide angle capability, other than just the fisheye.

I do crop the pix and I also am thinking of working with some programs that will de-fish photos.

I think between my 16-45 @ 16 mm and my 10-17 FE I may be able to get what I want...wide angle wise.

But I haven't discounted the 14 mm entirely...a good price, who knows.

Thanks for all the input...all that info clarified my thoughts and enabled me to make an informed decision.

audiobomber · 12-11-2009, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by lesmore49

I think between my 16-45 @ 16 mm and my 10-17 FE I may be able to get what I want...wide angle wise.

That's my opinion too. The 16-45mm is very strong at 16mm and the 10-17 can substitute as a superwide in most situations. I've heard good things about PT Lens so I'll likely get that eventually.

I love the church interior, Andrew.

Pentaxor · 12-11-2009, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by lesmore49

I have a Pentax 50mm Macro F 2.8 coming in...ordered it new. I decided on the Macro rather than the 14 mm wide angle.

I have the Pentax 10-17 mm fisheye and the more I use this lens the more I'm amazed at it's super wide angle capability, other than just the fisheye.

I do crop the pix and I also am thinking of working with some programs that will de-fish photos.

I think between my 16-45 @ 16 mm and my 10-17 FE I may be able to get what I want...wide angle wise.

But I haven't discounted the 14 mm entirely...a good price, who knows.

Thanks for all the input...all that info clarified my thoughts and enabled me to make an informed decision.

use the PTlens for your fish-eye. great purchase btw, hope you like your new macro. btw, is it an FA or DFA?

lesmore49 · 12-11-2009, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

use the PTlens for your fish-eye. great purchase btw, hope you like your new macro. btw, is it an FA or DFA?

Thanks...DFA. Looking forward to using it. I was at a flower conservatory yesterday, alternating between my 50 F1.4 and 10-17 fisheye..on my K10D.
Both worked well, but I wish I had the 50 Macro.

dawsonjm · 12-19-2009, 02:59 AM

The DA14 was my first "new" lens after the kit that came with my K10D. I have found it to be extremely sharp and very easy to use. It is amazing how close to the subject you can get, and indeed, it is even necessary a lot of times.

I have thought about selling it to finance a DA*16-50 or a DA 12-24, but I have not been able to do that as of now. It really is a nice lens, with great color.

MrCynical · 12-23-2009, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by raider

What abt the Sigma 10-20/f3.5? I read it is a fairly sharp lens, expensive but quality lens?.

I've read that it's softer than the old Sigma, which wasn't exactly a rapier itself.

12-19-2009, 02:59 AM	#51
dawsonjm Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boardman, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 106	The DA14 was my first "new" lens after the kit that came with my K10D. I have found it to be extremely sharp and very easy to use. It is amazing how close to the subject you can get, and indeed, it is even necessary a lot of times. I have thought about selling it to finance a DA16-50 or a DA 12-24, but I have not been able to do that as of now. It really is a nice lens, with great color. Last edited by dawsonjm; 12-19-2009 at 03:05 AM. Reason: no photo!*

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

12-11-2009, 08:57 AM	#46
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by calicojack 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 It is straight from the camera, but the extreme corner distortion is pretty well hidden in this particular image. I'll post another tonight where it looks as if I used the fisheye and corrected it, but failed to do so on the corners (kind of like Alfisti's image) The photozone review got it pretty spot on in regards to distortion with this lens

12-11-2009, 10:34 AM	#47
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,337 Original Poster	I have a Pentax 50mm Macro F 2.8 coming in...ordered it new. I decided on the Macro rather than the 14 mm wide angle. I have the Pentax 10-17 mm fisheye and the more I use this lens the more I'm amazed at it's super wide angle capability, other than just the fisheye. I do crop the pix and I also am thinking of working with some programs that will de-fish photos. I think between my 16-45 @ 16 mm and my 10-17 FE I may be able to get what I want...wide angle wise. But I haven't discounted the 14 mm entirely...a good price, who knows. Thanks for all the input...all that info clarified my thoughts and enabled me to make an informed decision.

12-11-2009, 11:34 AM	#48
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by lesmore49 I think between my 16-45 @ 16 mm and my 10-17 FE I may be able to get what I want...wide angle wise. That's my opinion too. The 16-45mm is very strong at 16mm and the 10-17 can substitute as a superwide in most situations. I've heard good things about PT Lens so I'll likely get that eventually. I love the church interior, Andrew.

12-11-2009, 11:59 AM	#49
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by lesmore49 I have a Pentax 50mm Macro F 2.8 coming in...ordered it new. I decided on the Macro rather than the 14 mm wide angle. I have the Pentax 10-17 mm fisheye and the more I use this lens the more I'm amazed at it's super wide angle capability, other than just the fisheye. I do crop the pix and I also am thinking of working with some programs that will de-fish photos. I think between my 16-45 @ 16 mm and my 10-17 FE I may be able to get what I want...wide angle wise. But I haven't discounted the 14 mm entirely...a good price, who knows. Thanks for all the input...all that info clarified my thoughts and enabled me to make an informed decision. use the PTlens for your fish-eye. great purchase btw, hope you like your new macro. btw, is it an FA or DFA?

12-11-2009, 04:31 PM	#50
lesmore49 Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Western Canada Posts: 12,337 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pentaxor use the PTlens for your fish-eye. great purchase btw, hope you like your new macro. btw, is it an FA or DFA? Thanks...DFA. Looking forward to using it. I was at a flower conservatory yesterday, alternating between my 50 F1.4 and 10-17 fisheye..on my K10D. Both worked well, but I wish I had the 50 Macro.

12-23-2009, 10:48 AM	#52
MrCynical Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Glasgow, Scotland Posts: 132	Originally posted by raider What abt the Sigma 10-20/f3.5? I read it is a fairly sharp lens, expensive but quality lens?. I've read that it's softer than the old Sigma, which wasn't exactly a rapier itself.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search