Good points, P.J. People seem to like the 14mm f2.8 on all brands (and they have to focus also). I'd be using it 99% of the time at infinity (although I realize that with most lenses today, infinity isn't a stop at the end of the focusing range, so it requires focusing also). Regarding distortion, I've been told that there are good lens profiles that effectively negate the mustache distortion of the 14mm in PS and LR. Hopefully there is one for the 16mm also.
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:11 PM, P.J. Alling <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote: > The difference in resolution is probably imperceptible in real world use, > even on a demanding sensor such as that in the K-3, you don't mention > distortion, the 14mm displays noticeable barrel distortion on APS-C, I don't > know about the 16mm, haven't looked at that too much. The other question is > do you need that extra stop wide open for focusing, these are manual > focusing lenses, that the 16mm give you? > > > On 6/26/2015 11:36 AM, Darren Addy wrote: >> >> Normally, I dislike seeking opinions on This vs That, because I figure >> one should do their own research and not "outsource their brain" on >> such matters. However, on this one I've done my research and I'm still >> torn. I would be using this lens for night sky stuff (aurora, meteors, >> mostly). I live at 41N latitude so normally my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is >> what I will use, but the recent aurora outburst surprised me by >> surpassing the FOV I have with that lens. I don't want to get caught >> in that situation again. >> >> I have a Sigma EX 10-20mm f4-5.6 that I happily use for daytime >> ultrawide, but it is possible that this new lens would ALSO have use >> in that scenario in lowlight also. (I like to do severe storm >> photography and it often gets very dark under them, even in daylight >> hours.) So that usage is of secondary concern, but for THAT I would >> definitely prefer the extra wide FOV of the 14mm over the 16mm. >> >> It appears that the 14mm outperforms the 16mm in CA: >> 16mm: >> http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/samyang-16mm-f-2-0-ed-as-umc-cs-lens-review-22335/images/highres-Samyang16mmCA_1373266588.jpg >> >> 14mm: >> >> http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-umc-lens-review-19621/images/highres-Samyang14mmCA_1341302313.jpg >> >> But on resolution, the 16mm seems to outperform the 14mm (and I shoot on a >> K-3) >> >> 16mm:http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/samyang-16mm-f-2-0-ed-as-umc-cs-lens-review-22335/images/highres-Samyang16mmMTF_1373266691.jpg >> >> >> 14mm:http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-umc-lens-review-19621/images/highres-Samyang14mmMTF_1341302315.jpg >> >> However, with aurora, a shorter exposure is more important than >> resolution because the longer you leave the shutter open the less >> resolution you are going to get with the aurora "motion". So the f/2 >> would be advantageous. >> >> Anyone with Real World experience with one or the other? At this >> point, I'm leaning slightly towards the 16mm f/2 >> > > > -- > I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve > immortality through not dying. > -- Woody Allen > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
