Pentax 14mm or 15mm?

[loathar]

Hey guys! Back with a question again!

Been looking @ Wide angle lens for landscape shooting and some interior, and am more interested in primes for these, so it has come down to the 14mm and the 15mm. I have ready many reviews on the lens and a lot about how each of them is better and such on pentaxforums and many other places. I have even seen pictures and such online, but I always believe that pictures online always have PP.

So I would like to ask my Singaporean brothers/sisters which lens would be a good choice, of course my dream would be to have 2, but they are pretty pricy. I have also seen the Sigma 10-20 and the Pentax 12-24 but I would prefer a prime in this case.

The advantageous for both are pretty evident with the 14mm being big in size but having a f2.8 constant while the 15mm is pretty small. They say that distortion for 15mm is much better controlled and that the 14mm is not so sharp towards the edges, but overall IQ and sharpness both seem neck to neck in most of the general reviews I have read. Both lens seem pretty good when @ f8-f11 from what many are claiming but some say the 14mm is too soft wide open while the 15mm has better color reproduction.

So if anyone of you guys/girls out there own the lens and can give me some honest opinions about it I would gladly appreciate it. I feel no opinion is better than that of the people here considering we usually shoot in the same environment haha.

All help is greatly appreciated! Thanks in Advance!

 

[pinholecam]

I have a 10-20 and a DA15.

For interiors, I'd still recommend a 10-20 or 12-24. Sometimes there is just not enough space to move back on to get more coverage of interiors.
BTW, you are using the lens with a tripod right?
If not, then consider the DA14 for the f2.8. But its not going to be the best picture quality at that f-stop, higher ISO and w/o a tripod if you intend to shoot that way.

 

[seafone]

Same here. I have both the 10-20 and 15mm. They are meant to be used differently and doesn't really overlap. Agree that 15mm is sometime not wide enough for interior shots. If you want to do a lot of interior shots that cover the whole room, 10 to 12mm focal range will be more useful.

The 15mm is a different lens. After crop factor, it gives you around 22.5mm which is just about right for landscape and architecture shots. The color, sharpness, flare control are good and give the punch!

Personally, I don't quite like 14mm perspective as I find it little too wide to be looking natural to eye perspective. To me, the f/2.8 is not really important here. Having a lens this wide like 15mm, it's able to 'see' a lot of coverage due to the angle of view.

Think you have to look at the picture sample from 14 and from 15 to determine which perspective you like better. That 1mm different is noticable....

cheersss..

 

[detritus]

i'm exploring wide-angle landscape photography as well and my research so far has led me to the basic conclusion of "the wider, the better". hence, none of the primes are appealing to me at this point - more interested in the sigma 10-20.

maybe you can share more about why you're looking more at primes at this point? one quick thought that occurred to me is that lenses should be versatile - if bringing on a holiday, the 10-20 can function both as an ultra-wide and a standard-wide. that reduces the need to change lens out in the field.

 

[iamnubie]

how about sigma 8-16, anyone tried this lens ?

 

[detritus]

how about sigma 8-16, anyone tried this lens ?

simon uses it. it has no filter thread. can do some DIY if u're adventurous though

 

[CorneliusK]

The DA 15's appeal is that it extremely small for an ultrawide lens and that it gives you very contrasty pictures. The flare pattern is beautiful also. Personally I find that the focal length is restrictive.

For general use and for landscape use, one of the UWA zooms which can use filters is recommended, due to their greater flexibility.

If you are talking about the availability of f2.8 on the 14mm - it is rare that this will be critical.

In the first place the acceptable handholdable shutterpeed for ultrawides is very slow already ( going by the 1/focallength shutterspeed rule)

Secondly the K-5 has SR, which allows even longer handholdable shutter times.

Finally the K-5 has great high iso abilities.

These factors combined mean that it is rare that you will find yourself in a situation where that 1 extra stop of aperture will make a big difference.

 

[loathar]

Hey everyone, thanks for all the replies and opinions, made me think about a lot of things haha.

Basically I also like a lens which gives me flexibility i.e the Sigma 10-20mm. But for me actually, the f2.8 is pretty important as I do performances and the lighting is always not very good, true I can up the ISO on my K-5, but I won't take it past 3200 if I want something decent. f4 for me is kind of slow as I have used the Tonika 11-17mm I think and with minimal lights its pretty hard as my subjects are moving. Cheerleader by the way so the action is always fast and furious.

Why wide is cuz space constrain is usually a problem, for example even when I take videos, its hard as there usually are tables around and such. For interiors and landscape I pretty much agree 15mm is more pleasing to the eye, and no doubt that the 15mm is also much more portable tt its 14mm counterpart. And yes of course then I use tripods, unless its somewhere I didn't bring my tripod along to.

I guess for me after lookiing at more pictures and considering the f2.8 I might have to settle for the 14mm. True the IQ might not be the best, pity you can't try out the lens before buying or even returning it like in other countries. LoL would help us all make better decisions.

Thanks once again for all the advice and help!