DA 15 vs DA 12-24?

[marius_mirea]

<p>Hello all,<br>

I have decided change my lineup to: DA 12-24+ the FA Limited trio+Tamron 90mm (ok, and a Sigma 70-300 consumer tele zoom :) and sell everything else.<br>

My question would be: in the realms of UWA/WA, would it be a wise move to sell the DA 12-24 and get the DA 15mm? The bulkiness of the zoom does not bother me.<br>

Anyone has made this shift and could share some pros and cons?</p>

<p> </p>

[guy_gervais]

<p>LBA at it's finest! LOL</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>G</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Pro: DA15 has better-than average flare resistance, less CA than DA12-24, and focuses a little closer. DA15 is sharper in the center but borders lag behind a bit until f/8. Distortion should be comparable at this focal length -- very little distortion for ultra-wide. For a lens you might use only occasionally, takes up a lot less room in the kit.</p>

<p>Con: Obvious zoom advantages in terms of versatility, but combine with a DA21/3.2 and this is somewhat mitigated.</p>

<p>Wouldn't it be cool if Pentax made something like a DA 11/4 Limited too?</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Hey! Can we spread some love around here?! I'd like to get my FIRST Limited lens before ya'll change lineups of multiple Limiteds.... :-D</p>

<p>-Jeremy</p>

[wpoupore]

<p>Jeremiah,</p>

<p>Don't do it! It's a sickness. Once you buy one Limited you can't stop until you've bought them all!</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>It's true.<br>

Now I wonder how much I could get for my kid...</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't it be cool if Pentax made something like a DA 11/4 Limited too?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe, but the Sigma 10-20 is perfectly excellent at 10-11mm and probably cost less than the 11mm f/4 would. Then again, it is quite a bit bulkier than I assume an f/4 limited would be.</p>

<p>The 15mm is about as wide as most people need. Afterall, how many really good 10-11mm photos do we see? Most are people in love with the UWA perspective for the first time, after a while these "look it's really wide" post stop from new owners of UWAs.</p>

<p>I agree though, Marius might be the finest example of LBA we have had in quite some time with all the shifts between DA* and DA/FA limited glass.</p>

[laur1]

<p>I picked the 15 because from reviews, the 12-24 seems to have a CA problem and I don't like that. I'd be interested in the 12-24 if a new optical formula would fix the CA issues.<br>

Marius - why don't you get the DA 55-300 instead of the Sigma 70-300?</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>What I think we may need is a -10mm f/2 Limited for self portraits from behind the camera just in case +10mm isn't wide enough.</p>

<p>In all seriousness, the DA15 looks amazing, but I couldn't imagine trying to use it all the time, I'd probably get sea sick. I've projected a future need for a DA21, but probably only after the DA70 or FA77.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>I had a copy of the 55-300, and while it is a bit more compact, it isn't optically superior (to my copy) to the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6, I assume even an average copy of the 70-300 is as good at the 55-300. So really there is no advantage either way.</p>

<p>Jeremy, the 15mm isn't super wide. It's a 24mm in film or 24x36mm digital terms. it's a very reasonable wide angle for general use.</p>

<p>But I think you would really love the 21mm, I find it wide enough in most cases, and often still a bit too wide at times. With a distortion correcting DSLR body such as the K-7 my favorite lens is even better!</p>

[marius_mirea]

<p>Oh, thank you guys for making an LBA example out of me :))<br>

What kicked me over the fence was the fact that a few weeks ago I have entered a very tough Nikanon forum and after a few "fights" there I realized that, since I do not intend to be a pro shooter, the Pentax zooms are of no use to me and moreover, there will be always a better nikanon option.<br>

So I decided that, since I intend to stick with Pentax (I am quite optimistic about the Pentax future) to acquire the glass that really makes me feel different from the crowd and also will fit both my MZ-6 and the future Pentax FF ;)</p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>in the realms of UWA/WA, would it be a wise move to sell the DA 12-24 and get the DA 15mm? The bulkiness of the zoom does not bother me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marius, for many the drawback of the DA 12-24mm is the relative heft. If this is a non-issue, then you'd be sacrificing significant focal length flexibility while gaining what appears to be minimal optical improvement. I have not owned or used the DA 15mm Ltd lens so my opinion is only for what I've seen on screen. And I have used the DA 12-24 a lot over the past two years. I have found CA to be manageable, mostly.</p>

<p>For me the advantage of the DA 15mm would be the small size. But I find that I would miss the breadth of those 3mm as I usually use an ultra-wide for an interior or a big forest. I admit to being tempted to slap the phenomenal<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A002_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html"> Canon 500D closeup lens</a> on the front for some wide-scoped closeups.</p>

<p>I'm curious: what are you using the DA 12-24mm to photograph presently? Maybe that will help you make the right decision.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[marius_mirea]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm curious: what are you using the DA 12-24mm to photograph presently? Maybe that will help you make the right decision.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Usually architecture or landscapes. Sometimes interiors but because it is a pretty slow lens I cannot use it for lower lighted places such as orthodox churches. </p>

[michael_elenko]

<blockquote>

<p>Sometimes interiors but because it is a pretty slow lens I cannot use it for lower lighted places such as orthodox churches.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the interior capabilities are important, have you considered a faster lens? The DA 14mm f2.8 or one of the wide-angle zooms comes to mind.</p>

<p>I'm also curious about what are the longest exposures (on a tripod) you've gotten away with for a successful shot inside an orthodox church shooting at f4-4.5? ISO too. Might as well post an example.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>ME</p>

[marius_mirea]

<p>to start with - I got my first DSLR 6 months ago :) so my experience is very limited (it is true I have a click count of 9000 on my kx but i did a lot of playing around with different techniques I was reading about)<br>

In the churches I would want pictures from they don't permit photogs unless it is a paid gig, and since I am not a pro...<br>

I could try to do some long exposures experiments, thanks for the idea.<br>

Eventually I have decided to keep the 12-24 , at least until I experiment with it enough since the 15mm prime does not seem to outperform significantly the 12-24 in exchange for the loss in WA and zoom capabilities.</p>

<p>Thanks all for useful opinions :)</p>

<p>Marius</p>

[laur1]

<p>Justin said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I had a copy of the 55-300, and while it is a bit more compact, it isn't optically superior (to my copy) to the Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. The PentaxForums users seem to prefer the DA to the other obvious alternatives. Since you had a chance to use both of these and I'll probably never own either, I am curious - how well controlled are CA/PF at the long end?</p>

[rparmar]

<p>Both are great lenses. The DA15 has the advantage of size. The DA12-24 has the advantage of 12mm, 13mm, 14mm, 16mm, 17mm, 18mm, 19mm, 20mm, 21mm, 22mm, 23mm and -- most important -- 24mm.</p>

[laur1]

<p>OTOH, according to the criteria set by Marius earlier, the DA15 is a lens that doesn't exist in Canikon land, while the 12-24 is available from Tokina.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I can't play the game of vs as I only have the 12-24. I am very impressed with the lens. On a recent trip to Japan I had to go light as possible as I was traveling with students. I also took a 50mm f2.8 macro and my ultra light 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 A + S-1.4X. It was a good combo for me and covered almost all my photography (I did chase a few birds with very mixed results). That said 80% of the images I took on the trip were with the 12-24 so I would say putting the weight in the zoom and saving it on the other end was a good choice..</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>I have both lenses. I had planned to sell the 12-24 but decided to keep it. The 15 is not a 'great' lens but the size and resistance to flare make it a true limited. For interiors, get a tripod and use the 12-24. ;-)</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting. The PentaxForums users seem to prefer the DA to the other obvious alternatives. Since you had a chance to use both of these and I'll probably never own either, I am curious - how well controlled are CA/PF at the long end?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think CA/PF has as much to do with the lens as the sensor. Older DSLRs had more issues than newer models in many cases.</p>

<p>As I've noted, my copy of the 70-300 is excellent, even at 300mm and f/5.6 I get very sharp centers and decent edges. I understand this isn't the norm.</p>

<p>I still own the Sigma 70-300 (i believe it is the second generation version) non APO. I have never noticed fringing to be an issue, but to be fair I don't often shoot in situations that fringing is an issue.</p>

<p>I don't actually remember if there was or wasn't a fringing on the 55-300, but again, I don't remember it being an issue using it mostly with the K20D.</p>