Yes, I now have the Pentax K5!

[ecsh]

Soft wide open even in the center of the frame. At f8, still soft in the center. Better copies of the lens give a decent sharpness wide open in the center, but does not extend to the edges. My first copy, even with 10 set as a lens adjustment in the camera, did not produce any sharpness from the lens at all. Second copy was slightly better. I was not going to try a third, but thought one more try and i am done. Now, reasonable sharpness wide open in the center of the frame, and it does a fairly good job now at f8 for the entire frame. If i was doing it again, i would probably go with the 12-24, or the 14.

 

[jonoslack]

I'm also going to be trying out the 15 this week, and see how it compares with the sigma 10-20. Though I prefer the wider sigma, the DA15 is just so compact. Might just go for both if they perform well.

HI Mark
The copy of the 15 I had was okay in the centre - even wide open, but the corners were never much better than mushy, even at f8. I have the sigma 10-20 f3.5, it's a nice lens, reasonably small and quite acceptably sharp - although it is a little prone to CA.

 

[markwon]

esch and jono,

this is disconcerting, since i just picked up a used (mint) copy. it should arrive in a couple of days. i guess i'll know what to look for. i just don't understand how so many people love this lens and the 16-50, while others bash it for sharpness or sdm issues. i guess i'm spoiled by lecia m lenses where QC was never really an issue.

since both of you are experienced with this lens, i would appreciate it if you could give some input to test shots i'll put up in a few days. thanks!

 

[jonoslack]

esch and jono,

this is disconcerting, since i just picked up a used (mint) copy. it should arrive in a couple of days. i guess i'll know what to look for. i just don't understand how so many people love this lens and the 16-50, while others bash it for sharpness or sdm issues. i guess i'm spoiled by lecia m lenses where QC was never really an issue.

since both of you are experienced with this lens, i would appreciate it if you could give some input to test shots i'll put up in a few days. thanks!

HI Mark
There really does seem to be a lot of variation in some lenses - I had 3 16-50 lenses in the autumn, and all of them had problems around 35mm (go figure). I gave up in the end and bought the 15 . . . . and then used the money to get the 18-135 (which is great for what it is).

Last week I got another 16-50, and preliminary shooting suggests that it's really rather a good lens.

 

[ecsh]

I was very excited to get my first copy after reading all the reviews and looking at as many pics as i could find, then, to find out my copy was in one word, crap. I went back to the Pentax forum and asked about it, and people blame it on not being able to shoot with such a wide lens. That is basically when i stopped reading the reviews on the Pentax forum, LOL.
Joe

 

[jonoslack]

I was very excited to get my first copy after reading all the reviews and looking at as many pics as i could find, then, to find out my copy was in one word, crap. I went back to the Pentax forum and asked about it, and people blame it on not being able to shoot with such a wide lens. That is basically when i stopped reading the reviews on the Pentax forum, LOL.
Joe

Hi Joe
Are we allowed to say 'crap' here - how fab . . . crappity crap crap!

I hadn't read the pentaxforum stuff about shooting with such a wide lens . . . that's about 23mm isn't it? :ROTFL:

Still, if you were using it for street photography it might not be too much of an issue that the corners are mush?

Mine was certainly nothing like as good as the 16-50 at 16, but then, it is a bit smaller!

all the best

 

[shadzee]

I had the DA 15 and LOVED it.

IMO, however the DA15 is NOT a landscape lens. It's not sharp corner to corner. Where it shines is in every day, round-about photography. It's very small, AF is very quick, and the center is always sharp. It does an amazing job with flare (you can shoot straight into the sun), and distortions are controlled as well as you could expect from a 24mm lens.

I have always recommended the lens. The bottom line, it's a joy to use in the city.

 

[jonoslack]

I had the DA 15 and LOVED it.

IMO, however the DA15 is NOT a landscape lens. It's not sharp corner to corner. Where it shines is in every day, round-about photography. It's very small, AF is very quick, and the center is always sharp. It does an amazing job with flare (you can shoot straight into the sun), and distortions are controlled as well as you could expect from a 24mm lens.

I have always recommended the lens. The bottom line, it's a joy to use in the city.

Still, if you were using it for street photography it might not be too much of an issue that the corners are mush?

as I said

Hi There - I don't disagree, just that if I'm using a WA lens, I want sharp corners . . . at least, I want to be able to have sharp corners if I stop down - as far as I can see the DA 15 just doesn't provide sharp corners under any circumstances.

It's a funny old world though - I find the 18-135 to be a thoroughly useable zoom.

 

[scho]

Guess I was lucky. My copy of the DA 15 is excellent and it was my most frequently used lens on a recent trip to San Juan, PR.
http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=29

 

[ecsh]

"Are we allowed to say 'crap' here - how fab . . . crappity crap crap!"
Yes, its an approved word for this hobby.


"I hadn't read the pentaxforum stuff about shooting with such a wide lens . . . that's about 23mm isn't it?"
Yes, when i was told this, i thought i would leave quietly and not say a word, so as not to upset the person who had told me this.

The thing which really raises the hair on the back of my neck, is a lens is designed to be f2.8 or 1.4, or 4 or whatever, and then they tell you not to use it there as it does not do well. What's that all about anyway,LOL.
Joe

 

[ashwinrao1]

Ashwin,

On both K20D and K-7 the Katzeye screen would interfere with the camera's metering. Specially the "bright" version.

Do some tests with your kit, and make sure you understand the small changes the screen may introduce in the camera's metering workflow.

I like the M-100/4 macro lens, and the M-50/1.4 is also fantastic lens. Also, the K-135/2.5 is legendary. Is that the version you're getting?

IMO, the the A*-85/1.4 and the A*200/4 macro (I have this one) are the best of the best in a Pentax K-mount.

Hi Sam, yest, the K-135/f/2.5 is what I sprung for...truly a lovely legend...I haven't had that much issue with metering. I have heard that spot metering is messy with the katz eye, but that's not usually how I meter, so I haven't had to much issue to date...

 

[ashwinrao1]

Hi Joe
Are we allowed to say 'crap' here - how fab . . . crappity crap crap!

I hadn't read the pentaxforum stuff about shooting with such a wide lens . . . that's about 23mm isn't it? :ROTFL:

Still, if you were using it for street photography it might not be too much of an issue that the corners are mush?

Mine was certainly nothing like as good as the 16-50 at 16, but then, it is a bit smaller!

all the best

Hahah...love it. Crappity crippity crap-ohh--laah!!!! Love it, Jona. Seems like I best be careful with the 15. I was considering getting one, but I am hearing that it leaves much to be desired (or at least, many samples leave that...not sure if the 14 f/2.8 is better or not in terms of less sample variability...)...Any thoughts on that?

 

[ashwinrao1]

Mark, best of luck with the 15. Let me know what you think once you have it...

 

[markwon]

Hi Sam, yest, the K-135/f/2.5 is what I sprung for...truly a lovely legend...I haven't had that much issue with metering. I have heard that spot metering is messy with the katz eye, but that's not usually how I meter, so I haven't had to much issue to date...

Ashwin, does the screen enhance visibility and operation of AF lenses too? I won't be using MF lenses but I would like to improve the screen if the difference is noticeable. Did you get the version with the Optibrite?

 

[ashwinrao1]

Here are a few with the legendary K-mount 135 mm f/2.5. Still adjusting to getting the focus right, but this was my first stroll with the lens...Processed primarily in LR3, shot with the K5

MG]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5593610673_2c141ed649_b.jpg[/IMG]

 

[ashwinrao1]

Ashwin, does the screen enhance visibility and operation of AF lenses too? I won't be using MF lenses but I would like to improve the screen if the difference is noticeable. Did you get the version with the Optibrite?

Hi Mark,
I didn't get the optibrite version, as I tend to shoot fast glass and was advised via the website that Optibrite is better for slower lenses (i.e. zooms). I would say that the investment is NOT worth it if you are shooting MF lenses. For MF, it is a godsend, truly, and makes focussing lenses far more reliable through SLR's...almost a RF like experience, in terms of getting the images to line up into focus...