14mm f/2.8 wide open = sharp ???

I need a wide lens for low light photography, and since a K100D plus the 14mm

f/2.8 cost only two thirds of what the corresponding Nikkor would cost me

without a body, and since the K100D can share batteries with my one of my

existing cameras (I have a Fuji S3), I thought this would be a good idea.

 

Adding to this is obviously the shake reduction of the Pentax camera and the

fact that it seems to perform very well at high ISO. But, I have some questions:

 

- How does the 14mm perform wide open. I don't expect it to be pin sharp in the

corners, but can somebody give me an idea of the performance?

 

- Will SR give me anything at all with a wide lens like that? We are obviously

talking loooong exposure times before a 14mm is beyond handholding, but I'm

looking for whatever I can possibly gain here.

 

- I've seen from tests that the ISO 1600 images from the K100D have a lot of

detail, but also some noise. How do they perform when cleaned up in Noise Ninja

or similar programs?

 

- The K100D test at dpreview indicated that SR gives one stop of exposure time.

Is that the general impression by users, or is it possible to use even longer

exposure times and still get sharp images?

 

 

Lots of questions this. Thank you for your time.

 

 

Jorgen

No!!!!

 

I passed on it because it's neither sharp wide open or very good overall.

 

I figured for a prime it would be a good lens. The 12-24 f4 is a great lens why shouldn't the 14mm be great?

 

Well it's not, neither the reviews nor SQF/MTF test were great.

 

Flare is an issue too.

 

Pass on the 14mm and go with the 12-24 or find and alternative.

 

Maybe the Tamron FF 14mm 2.8?

Thanks for the tip Justin, that is a big dissapointment.

Justin is totally right. The Pentax 12-24mm f/4 lens is superb. I very recently acquired one. Terrific build quality. The best optics out there. For less than $100 US more than the 14mm, you get an even wider angle, and the zoom, and a better lens. Worth the loss of one low-quality stop. Check out its test review in Popular Photography May 2006 issue. It beat out every other brand, even its cousin, the Tokina, which I believe uses the same glass. The Tokina received and excellent test review in dpreview.com and in Popular Photography, November 2005 issue.

 

But the Pentax has a different barrel design, maybe focus system, and coatings. Among other things, distortion is reduced to near zero! The reviewer made one mistake, saying the Pentax was tops in every respect except its SQF charts were in the "middle of the pack". Not true. I checked- it is tops there too.

 

In an article of Popular Photography April 2006, the month before their Pentax report, several brands of wide zoom lenses are compared, including a reprint of the Tokina results.

 

The Pentax even beat the $900+ Nikon lens hands down.

 

I don't know where you buy your equipment or are located. I bought mine from B&H of New York, but now they are out of stock. The US models are now running a $100 rebate. But I think 17th Street of NY still has one in stock (17photo.com) and they are like B&H- won't jerk you around. You will really like this lens!

On the other hand, if the FF Tamron 14mm checks out good, you would have a lens also usable for film! That is a plus from my point of view. But the performance of the Pentax for a zoom lens is spectacular.

My error: the test report on the Tokina lens was not in dpreview, but photozone.

I would completely disagree with the comments about the 14mm DA.

 

I can't vouch for it wide open. But stopped down it is a superb optic. Flare resistance is exceptional and the distortion is low. It's also built like a tank.

 

http://www.andymcinroy.com/0611note.htm

 

Have a look at some of the 14mm work on my webpage.

 

Andy

<center>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/37O-half.jpg"

target=new>

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/large/37O.jpg" border=0>

</a> <br>

Arundel Castle - United Kingdom<br>

<i>© 2005 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + DA14mm f/2.8<br>

ISO 200 @ f/11 @ 1/250 sec, Av mode, (fl=14mm)<br>

<br>

Click on image to see a larger version. </i><br>

</center><br>

I completely disagree with Justin. The DA14 is a remarkably sharp, well corrected lens even

wide open. It achieves its optimum performance between f/4.5-5.6 but it's satisfactory

wide open too. The picture above would have been much sharper still if I'd had the tripod

with me that day ... but detailing in the grasses and flowers on a 13x19 print leaves little

to be desired as it is.

<br><br>

Here is a link to a page of DA14 images, processed directly to full resolution JPEGs with

little other than default settings in Camera Raw. The set includes exposures at various lens

openings and EXIF data, and there is a RAW/DNG file of one exposure if you care to

download and fool with it yourself: <br><br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-examples/" target=new2>

http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-examples</a><br><br>

I bought the DA and Pentax *ist DS in early 2005 before the DA12-24 was available. I've

compared it with the zoom lens since and not found any reason to change ... the DA14 has

better rectilinear correction and sharpness, as well as a stop more speed. And I don't need

the zoom lens' focal length flexibility.

<br><br>

Buying this lens plus the DS body cost me 2/3 of what I'd have spent for the Canon

EF14mm/2.8L alone and, frankly, outperforms that lens on the Canon 10D body. I don't

know much about how it compares to the Nikkor 14mm.

<br><br>

BTW, fitting this lens to the Pentax K10D 10Mpixel body produces absolutely awesome

detail resolution. 6Mpixel isn't enough to do justice to the DA14's capabilities...

<br><br>

Godfrey

Just want to add something. Stopped down all lenses are pretty good. UNless they are total dogs I've rarely seen a review that said at F/8 there were still problems.

 

If you're paying for 2.8 glass it should be usable by f/4.

Thank you for the input. Pentax seems to be more or less the only camera manufacturer developing primes for the APS-C format. Nikon has developed one - 1 - one lens prime for the format, the 10.5mm f/2.8 fish-eye, while all new primes from Sony and Canon are FF-lenses.

 

Even f/2.8 isn't very fast after "old" standards, but that seems to be as fast as things get these days. I've looked a bit around (also at Godfrey's photos, thank you very much), and so far, I've found one single image shot wide open (in a test at ephotozine. The test as such didn't make me much wiser) which, as expected, had blurry corners.

 

I'm still interested in any information about this lens used at f/2.8, and samples if there are any. Apart from the Zuiko 11-22 zoom, it seems to be the only 21mm eqv. f/2.8 rectilinear lens on the market for the APS-C format.

Jorgen,

 

The Tamron 14mm f2.8 would crop into a 21mm f2.8. I use this 14mm on my eos film body. Its tack sharp into the corners I have have shot wide open with it also. Last month Tamron had a $200 rebate on it, now its just $100. It exists in Pentax mount, but its pretty rare though in Pentax mount. Nice thing is, it is a 14mm full frame lens on film body so it might be worth the $1,100 Tamron gets for it new, to you? I got lucky and bought mine like new in the box for $455 delivered early last year.

 

I considered buying my wife one in Pentax mount but she already has the Pentax 15mm f3.5 rectilinear. The Tamron 14mm is Superior to my wife's Pentax 15mm in film. With crop my wife's 15mm SMC prime does do quite well. Being 20 years newer likely helps with the results. Buying it new also gives you Tamron's 6 year warantee on it, which remains the best factory warantee in the lens business.

 

Lindy

Both Tamron, Sigma, Nikon and Canon have FF 14mm f/2.8. Apart from the higher price, they are big, bulky, heavy and have a very exposed front element. The latter is a problem for me, since I will use the lens in crowded environments, like rock concerts, with the danger of getting the front element scratched or even damaged.

 

Buying a FF 14mm is still an option, but then it would most probably be in F-mount, and adding another Nikon body to my arsenal.

 

If money wasn't an issue, I would probably buy a 5D with the 24mm f/1.4. Unfortunately, the price for that combo is in the area of $4,000 (camera + lens), and I don't even like the ergonomics of the 5D.

Sorry, but no sensible person expects a lens with a 90 degree diagonal field of view to

perform at its best in the corners when wide open. Ultrawide lenses are more normally

used stopped well down to exploit their wide field of view and deep focus characteristics.

When used wide open for low light photography, corner and edge detailing is rarely the

highlight of the photograph's intent.

<br><br>

<b>No</b> lens performs at its best when wide open, especially in the corners.

<br><br>

That said, the DA14 performs very satisfactorily for an ultrawide lens when wide open, and

is certainly very useable at that lens opening. At f/4, it outperforms lenses three times the

price. This is a sample image, chosen because it has details to see at the corners and

edges, illustrating typical wide-open performance with the DA14:

<br><br>

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DA14-WO-5306.jpg" target=new>

http://homepage.mac.com/godders/DA14-WO-5306.jpg</a> full resolution JPEG,

~860 K<br>

London 2005<br>

<i>©2007 by Godfrey DiGiorgi<br>

Pentax *ist DS + DA14/2.8<br>

ISO 200 @ f/2.8 @ 1/1600 sec, Av</i><br>

<br>

I suspect that if this lens' performance is unsatisfactory to you, you will not find any other

that does substantially better.

<br><br>

Godfrey

Godfrey,

You are of course correct, and I don't expect sharp corners from a WA lens wide open. The question is obviously how "unsharp" they are. However, the sample that you just posted shows me that it's more than sharp enough. That is one good lens!

 

Thank you. Just what I was looking for :-))

I have never used this lens but researching for it too some months ago as I was undecided on which to choose. After reading many user experienced (mostly from Chinese forums), the complaints on wide open sharpness top the list. At its peak performance stopped down, it can produce some very damn sharp results (at least based on the samples I have seen). But wide open it's worse than expected from a prime. Perhaps that's the whole reason for the existance of DA12-24/4 which is more consistent? But then there is always a chance for sample variations.

Alan,

To be honest, I think many people simply have unrealistic expectations with regards to the sharpness of a fast WA-lens wide open, and I should probably have expressed myself clearer when asking about this. From the samples that I have seem so far from this lens, it seems to be at least as good as the FF 14mm's are on FF.

 

Comparing it to an FF 14mm on APC-C format when the FF lenses are 2-3 times as expensive, and have the disadvantage of being big, heavy and with a huge front element that is prone to flare, damage from physical impact and that can't take filters, isn't really fair.

 

Comparing it to a zoom that is one stop slower, isn't really fair either. Even if the zoom may be sharper even when the prime is stopped down to f/4. The prime still has the advantage of it's faster aperture, something that the zoom can never achieve.

 

If you look at the sample posted by Godfrey, the result from this lens wide open, at least from my point of view, is more than sharp enough for this kind of lens. Then, there may of course be sample variations, but that's life.

 

There is btw. a zoom lens that is f/2.8, has the same FOV and doesn't cost more than this prime: the very good Zuiko 11-22 f/2.8-3.5, a lens that I own. It's even weather-sealed. Unfortunately, the mediocre high-ISO performance of the 4/3 SLR's eats away that advantage, at least compared to a camera like the K100D, which seems to have an excellent high-ISO performance.

Since I have never used this DA14/2.8, I have no idea how good it is, sample variations aside. But at least compared to my DA16-45/4, Godfrey's samples don't look all that sharp really at any aperture (I am hesitated to comment on others pics usually but I mean no offence to Godfrey so please forgive me). But maybe it has to do with AF, camera jpeg softness, different ways of post-processing, or maybe just different expectation. Still, it is 1 stop faster and wider, and I am sure it's more difficult to design.<p>

 

These are what my DA16-45 can produce wide open. It is not as wide of course but see how much better the corners are compared to DA14 shots. And I think the centre sharpness speaks for itself.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136662">http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136662</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136655">http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136655</a><br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136658">http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136658</a><br>

This one was through a double-glass window:<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136651">http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136651</a>

A Crop 14mm 2.8 is not the same as a 14mm 2.8 full frame lense.

 

Thats why these two lenses look different, they are.

 

Really you're comparing a 21mm 2.8 with a 14mm 2.8.

 

Now, if pentax made a 9mm ot 10mm f2.8 rectilinear prime you'd have a fair lense comparision versus full frame 14mm f2.8 glass. If this crop rectilinear existed I'm certain would not take screw-in filters because of its big front element.

 

You might use this 7mm-14mm f4 oly zoom for a better comparision albeit a stop slower and zoom and similar price:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8457&A=details&Q=&sku=358162&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

If link doesn't work, go to B&H ,olympus digital lenses, and find their 2x crop 7mm-14mm f4 at about $1600. This is a lens I've been curious about. What do you know about it Jorgen?

 

Lindy

>A Crop 14mm 2.8 is not the same as a 14mm 2.8 full frame lense.

 

But it is. FF14mm lens on APS-C will be the same as DA14/2.8 on APS-C.

>A Crop 14mm 2.8 is not the same as a 14mm 2.8 full frame lense.

 

They are and they are not. I see your point, since they are completely different designs. Forty years back, lens manufacturers hadn't even figured out how to design and manufacture a 14mm prime for an SLR. It's a rather complicated design. The 14mm for APS-C is, as you point out, not more complicated than a 21mm for an FF camera. But on the reduced size sensor, both the 14mm's give the same FOV and thus the same image.

 

As for the Zuiko 7-14: in my view, it's the best WA zoom ever made. It has surprisingly little distortion, is well built and at f/4, it's relatively fast for what it does. It's expensive though, and wider than I need at the moment. The charm with the 11-22, apart from being cheaper as well as faster, is that its reach (22-44mm 35mm eqv.) makes it an excellent walk-around lens, particularly for rainy days, since both the lens and the E-1 are weather sealed.

OK, True Alan, but full frame glass is all "sweet spot" on a 1.5x dslr.

 

My wife's 15mm rectilinear Pentax has soft corners on film. However, On digital body its all tack sharp, edge to edge.

 

By the way, your photos, especially the neighborhood pic makes me want to consider a 16-45 f4 now. I had no idea what an impressive lens it is wide open.

 

Lindy

<i>.."These are what my DA16-45 can produce wide open. It is not as wide of course but

see how much better the corners are compared to DA14 shots. And I think the centre

sharpness speaks for itself.<br>

<br>

http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136662<br>

http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136655<br>

http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136658<br>

This one was through a double-glass window:<br>

http://www.pbase.com/wlachan/image/74136651<br>

<br></i><br>

Alan,

<br>

Huh? All of these look blurry at the corners. Of course, there's nothing at the corners of

any of the frames that is in the same plane as what's in focus in the center of the frame so

I do expect them to look blurry.

<br><br>

The 14mm-example set that I put up top are specifically processed direct to JPEG from

RAW with no sharpening or other enhancements at all. They should look slightly soft all

over, and they're full-size 1:1 captures, not downsampled or adjusted in any other way.

The photo of Arundel Castle is processed and downsampled ... sorry I can't put the 13x19

inch print in front of you. The photo taken in London at f/2.8 shows some sharpness

falloff at the extreme corners ... perfectly justified IMO by the wide open aperture and the

straight-lines, surface texture of the image in those areas, which I chose specifically to

show how much sharpness falloff at the corners there was.

<br><br>

I had both the DA16-45 and DA14 at the same time. I did tests of a resolution test target

with both of them. Wide open and set to FL=16mm, the DA16-45 shows much more

corner degradation than the 14mm does, and likewise it shows more corner degradation

at 20-24-28-35mm FL compared to the FA20-35/4 AL when wide open.

<br><br>

All of which is somewhat moot anyway. As I said before, one ought not expect any ultra-

wide lens to be a stunning performer at wide open apertures at the corners. Ultra-wides

are designed to be used stopped down to maximize DoF.

<br><br>

They're also harder to focus critically due to the extreme DoF ... I use a magnifying

eyepiece when I'm working with the DA14 on a tripod. Most complaints of softness when

wide open I hear about, when I get to look at the original exposure, are simply not focused

accurately enough.

<br><br>

Godfrey

What I have to ask myself also, is if 16mm may be wide enough for what I'm doing. There is a 16-50mm f/2.8 coming up, isn't there? That would obviously be a nice alternative.

Lindy,

 

All 14mm lenses will produce the same field of view on the same format. Let the crop

nonsense go... ;-)

 

All I can tell you is that I borrowed the $2200 Canon EF14mm f/2.8 L when I was looking

for an ultrawide lens and tested it on the Canon 10D body. Similar size and density sensor

to the Pentax *ist DS. I found it's performance only mediocre. Never used it on a film

camera so I don't know how well it does there.

 

The Sigma 14mm was absolutely atrocious, tested on the Canon 10D also: flare, softness

on center and at edges, huge and heavy. So much for "the sweet spot" providing better

performance. The Tamron 14mm was unfindable for testing, I've subsequently heard from

one or two other people that it is a decent performer.

 

The Pentax DA14 on the *ist DS was the best performer of the lot and inspired me to buy

the lens and body. I'm very satisfied with its performance, which has improved nicely with

the higher resolution K10D body.

 

Godfrey

One of the problems with the FF 14mm's is that they are extreme lenses. On the APS-C format, they don't have an extreme FOV, but their designs are still extreme, leading to flare, CA etc.

 

The most extreme thing about the Pentax 14mm is the fact that Pentax is the only camera or lens manufacturer that has realized that there's a need for one, while others seem to hope that photographers should spend 2-3 times the amount on a lens that isn't really very useful on DSLR's except the FF Canon cameras.

 

This is even more strange considering the fact that 20-21mm was a very popular focal length on film. I won't say that most camera manufacturers don't respect the needs of the photographers, but in a way, Pentax seems to respect our needs a little bit more than some others that spring to my mind.

 

With all that said, I hope that Pentax will continue that policy. A 18mm f/1.8 or something like that would also be nice, wouldn't it?