|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-12-2012, 08:31 PM
|
| |
Haven't posted here lately. Here's a few from yesterday:
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-11-2011, 08:46 PM
|
| |
A standard 49mm pinch cap like most of Pentax's other primes works fine.
As for not needing the built-in hood, that's a stretch. Sure, the lens does better than msot in the flare department even without extending the hood - but it clearly helps to use it.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-23-2011, 09:45 PM
|
| |
It's *incredibly* sharp at f/4 - but only at the point of focus. DOF is not very large at f/4, at least not when looking at 100% crops.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-03-2011, 12:50 PM
|
| |
I'm sure every consumer ever produced had someone somewhere who had a complaint with it, but I certainly don't remember any specific common problem with the DA15, and I was pretty active both here and on dpreview when that lens came out. If such problems had existed, there would be threads. I'm guessing you might have read some random review where one person reported one problem, but I wouldn't assume any trend existed.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-02-2011, 11:07 PM
|
| |
Thanks! Actually, I don't like to go below 1/10"-1/15" or so with the DA15, so I'm not totally blowing off the old rule of thumb. Just pointing out that these shutter speeds *are* usually good enough, and quite achievable at ISO 1600 and f/4. Worst case, in *really* low bad light you go a little above 1600. Whether you do it in camera or via underexpose/push-process, it comes out the same. I use the underexpose/push-process simply because my K200Dmaxes out at 1600.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-02-2011, 10:00 PM
|
| |
At 15mm, you don't need a particularly fast shutter speed to avoid either camera shake or subject motion. I shoot indoors in low light with it and have at least as much success as with any of my faster lenses. Here's an example at 1/20":
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-24-2011, 11:48 AM
|
| |
Similarly, some people really find creative expression in photography, others find it in painting, others find it in music, others find it in poetry, others find it in sports. Nothing wrong with different people finding creative expression different ways. No reason to try to make it sound like what floats you boat must the same for everyone. I'm the first to realize that my preference for primes is quirky (as are some of my preferences when it comes to painting and music, for that matter). I'll happily tell people the advantages that primes have when it comes to specific criteria (like size/weight), but I'd no more tell people they should have the same preferences as me when it comes to lenses than I should when it comes to pizza toppings, pets, or spouses.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-20-2011, 04:36 PM
|
| |
It's been a while, but here's something I saw on a walk yesterday - the only thing that made me take off the M120/2.8 I was walking with. A telephoto is not the lens to capture something like this:
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-20-2010, 07:44 PM
|
| |
About 200g in weight, and 24mm in diameter.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-20-2010, 09:07 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-17-2010, 03:39 PM
|
| |
Yes it does, and for exactly the same reason it helps with camera shake. Wider angle view means the same amount of physical motion translates into less angular motion in the frame. And amount of motion that would be a problem at 50mm is *not* necessarily a problem at 15mm. I've got lots and lots of perfectly usable pictures at shutter speeds of 1/20" and slower form the DA15 - including pictures with the subjects engaged in ordinary activities - that never would have come out so sharp with any of my longer lenses at that shutter speed.
Depends on your standards, but I'd submit that every DSLR ever produced fits that description to most people's satisfaction. Unless you're printing wall posters, maybe.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
09-16-2010, 07:23 PM
|
| |
I don't think you need any super-duper high ISO to use an f/4 ultrawide in low light. It's not like you need very fast shutter speeds to stop either camera shake *or* subject motion at 15mm. 1/20" is *more* than enough, and that's usually doable at ISO 1600. When it's a little darker, you can always go as low as 1/10" without much worry. I actually find my 15 about my easiest to use lens in low light (others including a 28/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/1.7, and 70/2.4).
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
08-02-2010, 09:40 PM
|
| |
A few more from the recent vist by my wife's family:
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-27-2010, 10:08 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-26-2010, 04:44 PM
|
| |
I went out hiking with some visiting family yesterday in the foothills of the Rockies not too far from my house (I *love* the county open space parks where I live). I debated between taking just my 18-55II for simplicity versus my usual bag of primes, and the bag of primes won out. Turns out I needn't have worried about taking time to change lenses - the DA15 never left my camera. Next time I'll probably just do that.
BTW, that's not a dust spot in the picture above, but a bird.
At one point, I saw my nephew (above) leaping across the rocks, but not in time to shoot. So I asked to make the jump again. Luckily his mother was not within sight. It took four takes to get this:
My wife took this one of me:
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-18-2010, 10:25 AM
|
| |
Actually, I rather like the truck shot.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-14-2010, 10:09 AM
|
| |
Love that carnival image - what town is that? I don't recognize the "W", but feel I should...
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-11-2010, 09:45 PM
|
| |
I'm not really a lens tester, so I don't have any great insight. I'll just say if you're looking to test corners, most of the effort will center on getting them in focus, since that's rarely going to be the case at the apertures where there is allegedly an issue.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-11-2010, 09:03 PM
|
| |
Love the landscape, pinholecam!
I'm getting a bit better at finding opportunities to use the DA15 for concert photography - as long as I'm comfortable enough with the setting and musicians.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-10-2010, 03:05 PM
|
| |
FWIW, the all-knowing Wikipedia places the FOV of the human eye at 95 degrees, not counting peripheral vision (Human eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). That's one eye, I guess, not binocular. Of course, peripheral vision isn't an all-or-nothing thing. It's a gradual falloff, not a sudden cutoff. Another source I found in a search puts non-peripheral bincoluar vision at 100 degrees, another 120, another still 140. But measures that take resolution and other factors into consideration peg vision at a much narrower range - 50 degrees, for example.
If there one's thing clear from a small amount of research, it's that there is no One True Measure of the FOV of human vision, no matter how objectively one tries to define it.
The DA15 at 86 degrees might not match any particular existing objective measure, but I'm talking about something more subjective. Even going down the DA14 and its 90 degree FOV, I have a distinct feeling that I am taking in more with the camera than with my eyes, despite what some objective test might tell me I really was seeing (but apparently not at the level of acuity I am thinking of).
Anyhow, given the subjective nature of all this, it doesn't surprise me that others might not see things the way I do, but again, I think the fact that it fits so well *for* me has a lot to do with why this has become my most used lens.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-09-2010, 10:52 AM
|
| |
I did have one a couple of years ago; no issues. But thanks for the reminder, and sorry you've been had to deal with this.
Anyhow, yes, I can certainly perceive things further to the sides than the DA15. I should have made more clear I'm talking about a somewhat subjective sense of how much of a scene I can see in the sen of really being able to recognize objects. And indeed, my glasses restrict this to some degree. But like most people, I can still notice motion or changing in light in a rather wider field of view.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-08-2010, 08:54 PM
|
| |
Random thing I just noticed about the DA15 (well, the 15mm focal length in general on APS-C): it almost perfectly matches the FOV of my vision. There is of course no hard and fast line that says where our vision cuts off. But I know I am very aware when I shoot with my kit lens that 18mm is not quite as wide as I can see. And when I've borrowed the DA14, I am equally aware that it takes in noticeably more than I can really see. So this suggests that somewhere in the 15-17mm range is the most "natural" fit to my own FOV.
I don't have a 16 or 17 to compare with, but I did a number of tests today where I'd look straight ahead, try to keep my eyes fixed on a single point, and make a mental note of whatever was at the extreme edge. Then I raised the camera with DA15 mounted to my eyes and compared - and in each case, the match through the viewfinder was almost perfect. Of course, the viewfinder on my camera is not 100% coverage, so the the actual picture will be *slightly* wider - perhaps a little wider than I can see. I suppose 16mm might be a better match by the time you take the picture.
Anyhow, I think the fact that the FOV I see in the viewfinder so closely matches the FOV I can see before I put the camera to my face is a large part of why this focal length appeals to me so much. I find it surprisingly easy to compose at 15mm compared to just a little wider or a little narrower - perhaps because I have a lifetime of experience with that FOV.
This makes an interesting parallel with the recurring discussion on what constitutes "normal?. it is often - and very erroneously - claimed that a "normal" lens reproduces the FOV of human vision. No, a "normal" lens doesn't come close. But the DA15 does.
BTW, I wear glasses, which affects my perception of the borders of my vision, so my results might not be your results. I'd be interested to see what others think.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-03-2010, 09:22 AM
|
| |
No doubt!
But speaking for me, this is one of my favorite series of yours - which is saying a lot. The first shot in particular belongs in a textbook on composition, as the counterexample to commonly-repeated advice on the "evils" of centering and symmetrical compositions.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-30-2010, 09:21 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the comments, all, and nice to see you back, Diego (and congrats on the cover shoot)!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
06-30-2010, 10:46 AM
|
| |
You'll be happy to know that the last place I took my DA15 was just a friend's backyard pot-luck:
 |
