Pentax DA15 Lens — Brilliant!

 

<blockquote>

<p>One last post here....what did this thread start on again, and how the hell did we get into a film vs. digital debate.<br>

I'm not even asking this as a joke, I really am confused how we got to this point. I keep looking at the thread title and scratching my head. I know somewhere it turned into how such and such lens wouldn't be necessary on a film camera or maybe the opposite, but where did the film vs. digital issue come into play?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps we should get a mod to moderate. ;-) , now where can we find one.</p>

 

<p>People who care about print quality often print their own...are unlikely to use minilabs. Epson 3800 is fabulous, but the old 2200 was superb. Shooting film, they often scan it themselves with proper devices, ie Nikon. Makes way better financial/visual sense than extra lenses on lesser DSLRs.</p>

<p>Claiming "film formulas never were successful above ISO 800" indicates limited experience. Most C41 films happily offer an extra stop if you use a decent (non-mini) lab. Neopan 400 is beautiful at 1200 with Rodinal, 1+100 stand processed.</p>

<p>All of the E6 films push a stop or more without losing saturation or gaining unattractive grain, though contrast increases so skillful metering is important... of course, that's assuming one of the vanishing, genuinely professional labs (ie dip&dunk processing).</p>

<p>I've still got me one of those 14mm 2.8 Tamron full frame lenses with an autofocus pentax mount. I could argue its similar to classic leica "21mm" 2.8 via crop format. Heck my metadata tells me it is a "21mm". I just checked and it looks like tamron discontinued 14mm 2.8 in all mounts. Pentax AF mount 14mm 2.8 got deleted over a year ago. Thanks again Justin for letting me buy it a couple years back from KEH ;^) as its one of my favorite lenses to use on K mount.</p>

<p>I'll say it also, a 15mm f4 which translates to a 23mm f4 is slow, well slower than any 24mm film lens I've ever owned. But you all want tiny, so to grant your wishes small lenses get slower apertures. But hey! Its made of metal. Whats steel running thesedays? It was like $200. a ton & this 15mm f4 weighs 1/2 a pound total:</p>

<p>In Glass, Plastic, Metal so its got about 5cents worth of steel in it if it were all metal, no glass.</p>

<p>Ok as most of you know, I have only been shooting film for a little over a year. In that years worth of shooting, I have learned that digital simply does not have the DR of film. It is most noticeable when shooting into into shadows or very bright sunlight. But more importantly it is not weather film is better than digital, but one needs to understand that they are simply different. Film has a look all its own. Sure one can spend tons of time in PP digital images to look like film, but it still never really does. Film has a beauty all its own. Fuji'S HI END CAMERAS now have the option of giving you that ''provia or velvia'' ''LOOK'' but it still trully does not.</p>

<p>The biggest advantage that digtal has is the ability to take sample shots and chimp until your happy with your histogram. With film, there is no such option. BUT because if its DR it is more forgiving...</p>

<p>Case in point.<br>

This image was shot with my K20D and Sigma 10-20mm lens. This was the 4th shot of this particluar series after chimping inside this gold mining rig. The first looked good in the center, but the green tree was white. Others where to underexposed.<br>

<img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/family%20pics/IMGP9259.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>This was the one and only shot I took with film. ME SUPER, Tokina 28 f/2.8, 99 CENTS STORE FILM, TARGET PROCESSING.<br>

<img src="http://i404.photobucket.com/albums/pp128/jgredline/family%20pics/calico2009centsfilm24.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I personally really like Chromira printing for color printing. It requires less pixels, quality is excellent, longevity excellent, and you can print very large prints (panoramics with it) but that is just me.</p>

<p>I'm not sure where you inferred or where I wrote that films couldn't be used above 800. What I said very clearly was COLOR C-41 films are terrible above 400, and really I have never loved them at any ISO for my uses. Are they usable, absolutely, when printing on newspaper printer you can use just about any film and get similar results.</p>

<p>I spent 3 years shooting 800 and 1600 fujicolor press, my base ISO was usually 800 because of the extra shutter speed control, and the fact it looked identical in a paper to 400 (or 200 or 100).<br>

As far as Neopan, it's a black and white film, you are throwing in a variable that isn't really needed in our little debate about color digital vs. color film. Black and white is a different animal.<br>

<br /> As far as E6, I've always said certain films pushed amazingly well. Provia 100F pushes well to 400 with really no loss of quality. It has some interesting pluses in that since Provia has a cool tone to it vs. Velvia pushing it around a stop gives you a warmer 200 speed film which has many pluses in landscape and even wildlife photography. I've never personally pushed 400X since it came out after I was mostly shooting digital, but my understanding is it pushes well to 800 and 1600. I'm interested in trying some out myself though pushed to 800 and 1600.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ok as most of you know, I have only been shooting film for a little over a year. In that years worth of shooting, I have learned that digital simply does not have the DR of film. It is most noticeable when shooting into into shadows or very bright sunlight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Javier,</p>

<p>Have you shot slide film?</p>

<p>Digital and slide film have the same DR, digital gets an edge in RAW.</p>

<p>Sure slide film has less DR, but it has less grain, higher resolution, and more vivid colors and contrast than color print film. With the use of filtration and good lighting DR becomes a non factor anyway.</p>

<p>Your comparison is a bit unfair because you compare digital JPEG (compressed 8 bits) to C-41 print film. A much more fair comparison is digital RAW converted to 16 bit TIFF, and E6 like Provia.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Justin, I have not tried slide film yet. I hear it is very good when it is right, but when it is wrong it is wrong. Still, I need to try it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Your comparison is a bit unfair because you compare digital JPEG (compressed 8 bits) to C-41 print film. A much more fair comparison is digital RAW converted to 16 bit TIFF, and E6 like Provia.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps I was comparing apples to oranges, but I am only looking at the final product. Since I don't shoot RAW or use TIFF files, this is all I know. Don't get me wrong. I am not putting down Digital. There are many places where film does not even come close and if I had to choose one format or the other, I would choose digital. All I am saying is that there is room in the inn for both.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, if in your vast experience you have indeed found film to be so great above ISO 800, even at ISO 1200, I suggest you have that dialogue with Justin, since his view is that film is inferior at ISO 100.</p>

<p>All this is going to the idea that we no longer need faster WA lenses than f/4, because with digital all we have to do is increase ISO, where with film as a FF alternative we'd get inferior results at lower ISO. </p>

<p>I say nonsense, because I know I could have gotten my above night shot taken at ISO 800 as well with a good low-grain ISO 800 print film using the same Sigma 24mm f1.8 WIDE OPEN, but having a wider view than above- similar to that of the new 15mm f/4 LTD on a DSLR, which could never have gotten that shot at all. The Sigma lens must actually be faster, since the info comes in at f/1.7, so for the 15mm f/4 to equal this wider shot if ISO 800 film had been used, the DSLR would have to have ISO pushed some 2-1/2 stops to around ISO 4800. And that would look as good as the ISO 800 film I used above?? I don't think so!!! </p>

<p>For me, film is still a viable alternative for certain applications, including WA uses where a low-distortion fast prime is needed. And viable also because it is not costly for such occasional use, as in getting another outfit of digital FF gear. I don't blame Lindy for doing that, but I am not prepared to take that step. So this is not even looking at the prospect of this Sigma f/1.8 lens, or one of those Lindy has mentioned, being used on a FF DSLR.</p>

<p>Again, I am not putting down this fine new lens- just recognizing the limitations imposed by APS in WA use. I also concur that with WA use, a faster aperture is important less often than with other FLs. But sometimes a fast lens IS needed for WA, and one of the reasons I acquired the Sigma f/1.8 years ago. </p>

<p>Javier, I agree both film and digital have their uses. When I first started, for years I rarely shot print film- just slides. Sometimes I would have push-process done as well. I still do shoot some slides. But now for practical reasons, I am more into print film. When I want to give out sets of prints, I like print fim best. And it does provide the greatest degree of latitude.</p>

<p>Slide film is still the standard for accuracy of exposure, and it is less forgiving. </p>

<p>I've addressed John's concerns.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, John is referring to black and white, and not C-41.</p>

<p>It's very important to stay focused on what films we are talking about. C-41, E-6, and BW all have different characteristics. If someone is making statements about one, it doesn't necessarily apply to the other two. Likewise, films aren't even comparable between ISO when we get specific. For instance, 200-400 ISO slide films aren't typically great either. IMO, it is actually better to push Provia 1 stop than use a base 200 ISO slide film. This of course assumes your goal is to print more than a 4x6.</p>

<p>However, if people get careless and start grouping all films together then we have a mess of a discussion.</p>

<p>It seems to me Mike K and Javier are mostly referring to color C-41 film when discussing film, John Kelly apparently BW, and myself low speed fine grained E6 or K14 such as Provia 100F, Kodachrome 64, E100VS, and Sensia.</p>

 

<p>Justin, please...note that I referred to pushing both slide and C41 films AND B&W beyond 800iso. </p>

<p>That someone personally hasn't been successful above 800ISO, or that his techniques make him uncomfortable with an f4 lens in a given situation is OK with everybody here, I'm sure: He's his own photographer, it's his judgement call . On the other hand, some of us with different skills in film processing, scanning and Lightroom/Photoshop may enjoy different outcomes with both film and DSLR files.</p>

<p><strong>The OT is Pentax's new 15/4</strong>: The wonderfulness of a gigantic, barely-wide-on-APS lens that, being a Sigma is neither weatherproof, rugged, nor tiny, like the FAR wider Pentax, seems as hilariously <strong>off-topic</strong> as the high ISO distraction. I'd be the last person to deny that off-topic posts can be entertaining :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't think any Pentax Limited Lenses are "weatherproof".</p>

<p>Only SDM with added * are water resistant. Right?</p>

<p>Just 55mm f1.4, 16-50 f2.8, 50-135 f2.8, 200 f2.8, 300mm f4 & still unpriced in USA: 60-250 f4 are the only pentax water resistant lenses.</p>

<p>So John, weren't you In Love with that unissued GH1 from Panasonic. Are you still going to get one?</p>

<p>Here's that GH1 thread you started:</p>

<p><a href="../pentax-camera-forum/00T9Cf">http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00T9Cf</a></p>

<p>And the "official" weather resistant lens specs from pentax:</p>

<p>"The PENTAX DA Star series of high grade lenses, designed exclusively for PENTAX digital SLR cameras, features the quiet SDM focus system and tightly sealed, weather-resistant and dust-resistant construction to enhance durability for use in rainy or dusty conditions."</p>

<p>Pentax Limited lenses are not weather resistant.</p>

<p>Evidently, someone who has an odd form of insecurity feels that any remarks directed towards any shortcoming of the fine new lens of this topic, would be off-topic. </p>

<p>Lindy is correct, the 24mm f/1.8 lens on a FF body has quite the same FOV as the new 15mm f4 lens on an APS DSLR. It is also correct that with APS, no equivelent to such a lens on a FF body could be made. It is obviously not I who is hillariously "uncomfortable" with these facts. Let him who has such superior techniques take his f/4 lens and shoot the above scenes, pushing to ISO 4800, and produce his superior results, putting some examples where his mouth is. </p>

<p>Now, now kids, settle down, don't quibble. Let's all shake hands and admit that what we're really fighting over is who is most impatiently awaiting the K-7 :-)</p>

<p>To put the DA 15 Limited in context, it isn't intended to be Pentax's fast wide lens. they have the DA 14 f2.8 for that. I'd never turn down a faster lens, but f2.8 isn't too bad if you need fast. Now have a look at the size and weight numbers below, decide whether you're carrying the lens in your pocket or in a camera bag, and satisfy your LBA! I bought the DA 12-24 the day before the jacked up the prices in Canada, couldn't be happier with it, but I'm still tempted by the small size of the DA 15, to go with the others Limiteds I've got. Now I've just got to find the perfect bag to carry them for a day of shooting.</p>

<p>Pentax DA 14 f2.8<br>

14.8 oz<br>

3.3" x 2.7"</p>

<p>Pentax DA 15 f4 Limited<br>

7.47 oz<br>

2.5 " x 1.58"</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>You win!</p>

<p>You won't hear that often, so there it is. Enjoy it. I expect you will go out to dinner, have a beer on me, and enjoy the moment!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Javier, that ME Super + $0.99-store-film shot came out nice, and apparently with relatively little effort. Any exposure comp, or just Av, point & shoot? Out of curiosity, what were the JPEG settings on the digital shot? I imagine in a case like that there might have been some benefit to dialing down contrast though that still wouldn't have convinced the camera to meter to keep the trees from blowing out.</p>

<p>I am in the process of replacing my kit lens with a couple of primes. So far I have bought Pentax 35mm Ltd. so I was interested in the 15mm wide lens. I might like the 21mm instead or else go to zooms and get the DA *16-50mm or the DA 16-45mm. So far from this thread, the only thing I've decided to do is to hang on to my film cameras! LOL</p>

<p>I sprung for the Pentax DA 15/4! B & H Photo was willing to match a competitor's lower price tag as well as matching the free shipping. I may have it as soon as this Friday. I can't wait to try it out!</p>

<p>That's great Kathy. I am still on the fence with that one. Please be sure and post up some pics when you have some. :)</p>

<p>If the lens is delivered on Friday, I'll take it out on the weekend and shoot some images. </p>

<p>I have a few photos taken today with the new 15mm Limited lens. I took some interior shots with and without flash. The kitchen shot is distorted. The dresser shot shows vignetting with the pop up flash. I don't know how to post multiple photoes in one comment so please bear with me.</p><div></div>

<p>Distortion corrected Interior shot in kitchen</p><div></div>