[Frogfish]

Gorgeous shot Disco !!

[yiptwo]

That would be the "perfect caption"

Nice shot Yiptwo, Is that one also taken with r72 I.R Filter ?

thanks
no filter was added for that one.

[kg111]

haha its funny how this thread made everyone buy the 15...i'm just another victim new to the pentax family as well...

[v5planet]

VERY IMPORTANT!

I have for a little while now been stuck between getting the DA 15mm limited or a Sigma 10-20mm HSM. I'll tell you what, if it wasn't for business I would've had the DA 15mm a looooooooong time ago. But what I need a wide angle for is real estate photography. I just worry that the DA 15mm won't be wide enough for small bedrooms. Could any of you take sample photos of places in a house including small bedrooms with the DA 15mm lens. This would be so appreciated!

Get the zoom. The 15 is wide, but in the end it's not that wide, and you will struggle to make it work indoors.

[mikeSF]

IMO you should skip both and get the 8-16mm. At 8mm the smallest bedroom will seem cavernous

see some samples here

Test Shoot with Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM on Canon 60D

great work! beautifully shot rooms.

[mattb123]

Hiking with the family (and the da15).

[xanis]

Some fireworks taken earlier with the 15mm.

[todd]

Hiking with the family (and the da15).

aka 'the baby' :-)

[mattb123]

aka 'the baby' :-)

lol, right!

[kg111]

can i ask one question...how do you sharpen the lens to the camera?

[intjonmiller]

Someone posted a day or two ago about skipping the Sigma 10-22 and go for the 8-16 instead because the 8mm is "20% wider". I don't see the post now, so maybe they realized their error and removed it, but in case I'm just blind now and/or anyone out there is confused, focal length is not the same as field-of-view. You don't get 20% wider view. It's closer to 10%, but that varies with the system and corresponding sensor size used for the numbers (Sigma's sensors are slightly smaller than the Pentax/Nikon/Canon cropped sensors). That's not to say you won't get a benefit, just that it won't be 20% wider view.

And, for those who say that the 15mm isn't wide enough for architectural work, I would point out that only in real estate photography do you see the ultrawides in common use; rarely so in architectural publications. Even when you get a proper rectilinear view (with or without the help of software) it still distorts the perspective enough to change the feel of the architecture.

I edit for another photographer who shoots almost exclusively real estate and architectural work. He shoots primarily with the Sigma 10-22. As I'm working my way into that market I've been considering what to purchase. With the help of Lightroom's archive of the metadata for all the shots I've done for him over the course of 3 or 4 months I figured out how not critical that width is. With a sample size of some 3,300 photos I found that the VAST majority of his shots with that lens were in the 14-16mm and 20-22mm ranges. So I could have a small kit with a 15mm and 21mm lens and accomplish over 90% of the same compositions as he does with his zoom, and I'd have Pentax Limited quality instead of Sigma zoom quality (in particular the low flare and strong contrast). And anyone who has spent any time with primes knows how they encourage more creative composition by forcing you to move to "zoom". Throw in the now famous "3d" quality of the 15mm and you have the potential for distinctive images that you won't get with the 10-22 or the 8-16. Obviously a lens can't do it all for you, but getting away from the "I have to capture everything in one shot" mentality that often results in flat, uninvolved photos (the exact opposite of the "3d" quality that sells so many 15s) will certainly help.

The best use for those ultrawides isn't to capture an ever wider scene, but rather to manipulate the perspective. Make some feature of the property really pronounced while still putting it in the perspective of the entire scene by shooting it up close, rather than backing yourself into a corner to get everything in the scene rendered equally small in a single shot. The other 10% of those shots I edited? Yep. Flat and uninteresting.

Again, I'm talking theory here since I don't actually own the 15mm, but I've used ultrawides for years and not one shot I've ever done with that sort of "how much more can I cram into this shot?" approach has ever resulted in even a warm reaction by viewers. It really does make for uninteresting photos. But when done as I mentioned before it can be a very effective tool. Many of my portrait images that have worked the best in my portfolio for getting more work have included that approach to emphasizing the people (like a newlywed couple in a private moment after the ceremony), but within the context of the event.


Okay, enough of this talk. Someone who actually owns this lens post some more! PLEASE!

[enoeske]

One more from Chicago:

[mattb123]

X-post from B&W thread
From the Alpine Tunnel
K-5 & da15

[disco_owner]

Gorgeous shot Disco !!

Thank you Frogfish . appreciate the comment

Masterful exposure and processing. You've hit the true goldilocks point of contrast..

wow !! I feel Extremely humbled !!

Thank you.

[shaolen]

Someone posted a day or two ago about skipping the Sigma 10-22 and go for the 8-16 instead because the 8mm is "20% wider". I don't see the post now, so maybe they realized their error and removed it, but in case I'm just blind now and/or anyone out there is confused, focal length is not the same as field-of-view. You don't get 20% wider view. It's closer to 10%, but that varies with the system and corresponding sensor size used for the numbers (Sigma's sensors are slightly smaller than the Pentax/Nikon/Canon cropped sensors). That's not to say you won't get a benefit, just that it won't be 20% wider view.

And, for those who say that the 15mm isn't wide enough for architectural work, I would point out that only in real estate photography do you see the ultrawides in common use; rarely so in architectural publications. Even when you get a proper rectilinear view (with or without the help of software) it still distorts the perspective enough to change the feel of the architecture.

I edit for another photographer who shoots almost exclusively real estate and architectural work. He shoots primarily with the Sigma 10-22. As I'm working my way into that market I've been considering what to purchase. With the help of Lightroom's archive of the metadata for all the shots I've done for him over the course of 3 or 4 months I figured out how not critical that width is. With a sample size of some 3,300 photos I found that the VAST majority of his shots with that lens were in the 14-16mm and 20-22mm ranges. So I could have a small kit with a 15mm and 21mm lens and accomplish over 90% of the same compositions as he does with his zoom, and I'd have Pentax Limited quality instead of Sigma zoom quality (in particular the low flare and strong contrast). And anyone who has spent any time with primes knows how they encourage more creative composition by forcing you to move to "zoom". Throw in the now famous "3d" quality of the 15mm and you have the potential for distinctive images that you won't get with the 10-22 or the 8-16. Obviously a lens can't do it all for you, but getting away from the "I have to capture everything in one shot" mentality that often results in flat, uninvolved photos (the exact opposite of the "3d" quality that sells so many 15s) will certainly help.

The best use for those ultrawides isn't to capture an ever wider scene, but rather to manipulate the perspective. Make some feature of the property really pronounced while still putting it in the perspective of the entire scene by shooting it up close, rather than backing yourself into a corner to get everything in the scene rendered equally small in a single shot. The other 10% of those shots I edited? Yep. Flat and uninteresting.

Again, I'm talking theory here since I don't actually own the 15mm, but I've used ultrawides for years and not one shot I've ever done with that sort of "how much more can I cram into this shot?" approach has ever resulted in even a warm reaction by viewers. It really does make for uninteresting photos. But when done as I mentioned before it can be a very effective tool. Many of my portrait images that have worked the best in my portfolio for getting more work have included that approach to emphasizing the people (like a newlywed couple in a private moment after the ceremony), but within the context of the event.


Okay, enough of this talk. Someone who actually owns this lens post some more! PLEASE!

Hey Thanks for the input! I was the one who that guy was responding to. I wanted to know if the 15mm would be good for real estate vs having to settle for a sigma 10-20mm. I wound up getting the 15mm just today! I'm glad to say that I think this really will do the trick. I'm going to be taking shots for a hotel soon so I guess I'll find out.