[jsherman999]

This lens has very quickly become one of my favorites, and has displaced the 21 as the lens that is on my camera by default. One thing that's great about this lens that doesn't get much mention the lack of purple fringing. The only other lenses I have that do better in this area are a couple of voigtlander apochromatics, which seems pretty amazing for such a little wide angle lens.

Here's a few from my first trip with the lens (I bought it for this trip).





Pictures are from Glacier National Park and Waterton

Breathtaking. What aperture was this shot at?


.

[Marc Sabatella]

The thing that amazes me, is the lack of distortion in those photos. If I took photos of my son with my DA 16-50 at 16mm, he would look like one of the Na'vi.

Some of that is due to the lens, but there is always going to be perspective distortion - it's inherent in squeezing a wide angle of view into a less wide angle print of monitor display. Will be most noticeable is you try to come in close for a head and shoulder shot, or on the edges of the frame, where the subject is actually much farther off to the side than it will look in the photo. Much of the trick of shooting people with a wide angle lens is to find perspectives that minimize that effect, but if you try a head and shoulders shot with the DA15, you'll get the nose and deep skull / distant ear effect just as surely as with any wide angle lens, and anone toward the side of the frame will still look strangely elongated because they are actually being shot much more in profile than it appears. But it *is* true that the DA15 has less of the lens-induced type of distortion that would be more noticeable in architectural shots.

[Pentaxoid]

How does this lens compare to the 14mm 2.8? Is f/4.0 enough for indoor / low-light shots?

Shots taken by walter are fantastic, but there is obviously a huge work done in PP (hint: no shadows at all in the forest shots)

[stevebrot]

Breathtaking. What aperture was this shot at?


.

f/8 according to the exif...

Steve

[Marc Sabatella]

How does this lens compare to the 14mm 2.8? Is f/4.0 enough for indoor / low-light shots?

Many of them, sure. It's not like you're taking portraits at 15mm - it's more about things that don't move, and you don't need a fast shutter speed to combat camera shake at 15mm. Crowd shots will often have a little motion blur in some of the figures; many of the people will be rendered so small because of the wide field of view that it just doesn't matter - you weren't going to see much facial detail anyhow.

I've posted these elsewhere I'm sure, but here are some basic indoor low light shots taken at ISO 1600, f/4, and shutter speeds of around 1/15", 1/10", and 1/30", respectively. You could of course get faster shutter speeds at higher ISO.





Those are pretty low light levels; many indoor situations are a lot brighter, as in this one, taken at ISO 800 and 1/60":

[AlexJ]

This lens has very quickly become one of my favorites, and has displaced the 21 as the lens that is on my camera by default. One thing that's great about this lens that doesn't get much mention the lack of purple fringing. The only other lenses I have that do better in this area are a couple of voigtlander apochromatics, which seems pretty amazing for such a little wide angle lens.

Here's a few from my first trip with the lens (I bought it for this trip).







Pictures are from Glacier National Park and Waterton

Will the admin please shut down this thread before my marriage gets strained ... again? Indeed, the DA15 is the best lens for panoramic shots. Got to have it! I don't know whether I should thank Walter for posting these beautiful photos though.

[G_Money]

I'm thinking of returning my copy. My images are nowhere near as stunning as these, I must have an inferior copy!

[deadwolfbones]

Was playing around with focus adjustment today on the 15, and even with +10 it was still backfocusing on my K-7. But then again it was under fluorescent light. Need to try it in daylight, I guess.

[rams]

bokeh not bad either.

[frank]

This lens has very quickly become one of my favorites, and has displaced the 21 as the lens that is on my camera by default. One thing that's great about this lens that doesn't get much mention the lack of purple fringing. The only other lenses I have that do better in this area are a couple of voigtlander apochromatics, which seems pretty amazing for such a little wide angle lens.




Pictures are from Glacier National Park and Waterton

Oh man, this one is worth making a big print and hanging on the wall.

[stevebrot]

I'm thinking of returning my copy. My images are nowhere near as stunning as these, I must have an inferior copy!

You mean your copy did not come pre-loaded with beautiful vacation images! Must have been gray market...

Steve

[walter]

Thanks everyone! Always happy to spread the LBA, I have plenty to spare

[brecklundin]

Very nice. I enjoy lens porn.

but it's not really porn unless the rear cap comes off...

[goddo31]

Thanks everyone! Always happy to spread the LBA, I have plenty to spare

mate, stop it!
Seriouslly, that's another really nice image there. Did you use any filters in these shots?

[walter]

Yeah, I probably used a circular polarizer in most if not all of them. For waterfall shots, I will sometimes add a Neutral Density ND8 on top of that if it's too bright.