|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-16-2010, 04:15 PM
|
| |
Yes, all this is personal. I don't try to stamp the lens as "average" for landscapes. What I wrote is simply my impression, and not a fact.
I am also looking for a lens that I enjoy using and that can provide good pictures....and if I come across a lens that, in my opinion, has something special to it, then that is a bonus. Like I said in my previous post, sometimes you just like a lens' rendering without being able to explain in detail why you think it's unique.
I have tried the DA 15 for a very short moment and I don't know how many pics I have looked at...must be hundreds. I know that the best way of judging a lens is to test it yourself for a longer period of time but looking at pics has helped me many times. For example, when deciding between the DA 40 and FA 43 I looked at many pics and in most cases I preferred the pics taken with the DA 40. Then I borrowed both lenses and my first impression didn't change, so I bought the DA 40. The same goes for DA 70 vs FA 77.
Kind regards
.lars
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-16-2010, 03:42 PM
|
| |
The lens is not "bad" for landscapes or architecture and its size alone is a good reason to buy it. To me the DA 15 will be the obvious choice if I ever want to buy a lens in that focal range. (10-20mm).
I don't know why I am more impressed by its performance in urban/interior/street/industrial shots. I think it has something to do with the lens' color and contrast. I have noticed that it seems to have a special delicate rendering of artificial light and yellow/brown colors, for example furnitures and floors made of wood.
In urban/industrial shots it's more common to put the main object in the center (or close to the center) of the frame and the DA 15 seems to have excellent center sharpness, so I guess this has some influence on my impression.
Landscape motives with lots of fine details all over the frame (especially foliage) appear more ordinary....less punch, less sharpness and also the transition between detailed areas and non-detailed areas appears "unclear" (I don't know a better word even though it's inaccurate). So, I don't see the division/separation of main elements in the landscape that clearly...and this makes the picture look more flat. It is especially noticeable in landscape pics with overlapping layers. I have seen exceptions though, for example a pic by Walter in this thread.
Jay, this has absolutely nothing to do with your skills in photography.
It's not always possible to explain in detail why you like a lens' rendering. For example, I love my M 85 F2....... it has something special to it, some kind of 3D rendering, but I don't know exactly what it is :)
Kind regards
.lars
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-16-2010, 09:35 AM
|
| |
I don't think this has anything to do with focal length, at least not for me. I remember testing traditional landscapes with the DA 21, FA 31, DA 40, FA 43 and DA70. The DA 21 was the only one I didn't like.....even though it was the widest.
However, I understand your point. The typical seascape pics (blurred water hitting rocks + dramatic sky) are usually shot at 10-12mm and a 15mm will in most cases not create the same dramatic effect.
Kind regards
.lars
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-16-2010, 02:01 AM
|
| |
I find this lens quite interesting. It seems to excel in some categories such as urban, industrial, street, food and interior. In traditional landscapes and architecture it seems ....good, but not unique IQ-wise.
Kind regards
.lars
|
