what lens for fisheye fever

bimjo · 05-19-2010, 05:37 PM

Define "extreme" fisheye. As in not a round image?

If you're looking at rectilinear fisheye lenses, but don't want the normal distortion you might consider the Zenitar 16mm. It's fishy, but not overly so. I sold mine and picked up the DA 10-17 for that reason.

Depends on what your expectations are as to what you end up getting.

audiobomber · 05-19-2010, 06:57 PM

I don't see a lot of pf with my 10-17, except in extreme situations, like a lot of lenses. If you have a K-x or K-7 you can set the camera to correct for CA.

Gotta love the 10-17's 1:2 close focus and saturated Pentax colour rendition.

Nick Siebers · 05-19-2010, 07:05 PM

$700 for the K 17/4 sounds high. Even for an A 16/2.8, and that is a darn nice lens if you can find one. The DA 10-17 is a more practical choice, probably, unless you highly value compactness. As I do. Zenitar 16/2.8 is supposed to be good as well, probably just what you are looking for.

**interested_observer** · 05-19-2010, 07:39 PM

I have had mine for about 5 years and have taken some pretty nice images with it. Its the most versatile fisheye you can have. Purple fringing has not been a problem, and if encountered, software can fix it.

I know of no other fisheye that can provide the service this one provides....

Here is an example - click on the image twice and it will enlarge. This is just from a K100, 6MP. Great detail. Plus this is directly into the sun - no flare, no PF. The only down side is that it can not take filters.

Pentax User Photo Gallery - Sailing into a Pacific Sunset

hinman · 05-19-2010, 08:11 PM

The Pentax DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 definitely get my vote if you ask me. PF is quite frequent when I use it on indoor shots with white lighting or nighttime shots with lots of bright lights. In outdoor use in daytime shooting, I don't see PF showing as much. Here are samples with K20D and the DA 10-17mm, please noted the PF in most of the white lights in the baseball field.

1/30 sec, f/4.5, 17mm, iso 800, 0 Ev

1/30 sec, f/4.5, 11mm, iso 800, 0 Ev

0.8 sec, f/4.5, 17mm, iso 160, -0.3 Ev, hand-held shot

Pentax DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5

With the DA zoom, you have the choice of getting the extreme fisheye subject in the widest end as in 10-13 while I can have the least fishy to almost like a normal wide angle in the 15-17mm end. It is one of those fun lens that I love having in my bag.

Hin

hinman · 05-19-2010, 08:24 PM

Attempt on Meteor Night with the DA 10-17mm fisheye

30 sec, f/5.0, 10mm, iso 400, 0 Ev (with K20D)
The lighted path come from a plane

Meteor Night with DA 10-17 fish-eye

Thanks,
Hin

stevebrot · 05-19-2010, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by bimjo

Define "extreme" fisheye. As in not a round image?

If you're looking at rectilinear fisheye lenses, but don't want the normal distortion you might consider the Zenitar 16mm. It's fishy, but not overly so. I sold mine and picked up the DA 10-17 for that reason.

Depends on what your expectations are as to what you end up getting.

I think he means full 180 on APS-C. The Zen only gives about 120 degrees diagonal on my K10D. While the Zenitar is not particularly "fishy" on APS-C, it is by no means rectilinear...fisheyes never are. They all use some form of circular projection.

Steve

kjacks · 05-20-2010, 11:19 PM

thanks for all of your input.
I hadn't seriously considered the zenitar 16mm maybe I will give that another look.
and by "extreme" i meant no more than 10mm.

sterretje · 05-21-2010, 02:34 AM

Those are NOT your photos ! So please give LensScribe the credits for it.

Originally posted by Ira

Got 700 bucks laying around?

SMC Takumar 17 F4:

Ira · 05-21-2010, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

Those are NOT your photos ! So please give LensScribe the credits for it.

I said they're not mine--see above.

Guess I shouldn't have just said "some guy" in the Tak Club.

Sorry!

sterretje · 05-21-2010, 05:01 AM

Yep, a few posts later (as I see now). It would however be nice if you gave the credits in the post that contained the photos.

Ira · 05-21-2010, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by sterretje

Yep, a few posts later (as I see now). It would however be nice if you gave the credits in the post that contained the photos.

I didn't have any intention to pass them off as mine, and I should have credited it from the first post.

I'm just so blown away by those shots that I wasn't thinking.

sterretje · 05-21-2010, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Ira

I didn't have any intention to pass them off as mine, and I should have credited it from the first post.

I know, but it can be misinterpreted

Originally posted by Ira

I'm just so blown away by those shots that I wasn't thinking.

I know, they are amazing.

05-19-2010, 07:39 PM	#19
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	I have had mine for about 5 years and have taken some pretty nice images with it. Its the most versatile fisheye you can have. Purple fringing has not been a problem, and if encountered, software can fix it. I know of no other fisheye that can provide the service this one provides.... Here is an example - click on the image twice and it will enlarge. This is just from a K100, 6MP. Great detail. Plus this is directly into the sun - no flare, no PF. The only down side is that it can not take filters. Pentax User Photo Gallery - Sailing into a Pacific Sunset

05-20-2010, 11:19 PM	#23
kjacks Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: auburn, wa Photos: Gallery Posts: 69 Original Poster	thanks for all of your input. I hadn't seriously considered the zenitar 16mm maybe I will give that another look. and by "extreme" i meant no more than 10mm. Last edited by kjacks; 05-20-2010 at 11:44 PM.

05-21-2010, 02:34 AM	#24
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Please give credit to the photographer Those are NOT your photos ! So please give LensScribe the credits for it. Originally posted by Ira Got 700 bucks laying around? SMC Takumar 17 F4:

05-21-2010, 03:07 AM	#25
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by sterretje Those are NOT your photos ! So please give LensScribe the credits for it. I said they're not mine--see above. Guess I shouldn't have just said "some guy" in the Tak Club. Sorry! Last edited by Ira; 05-21-2010 at 03:15 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fisheye Fever Club -- Flaunt your fisheye photos!	troyz	Lens Clubs	4157	2 Days Ago 09:57 AM
Nature Island Fever	sealonsf	Post Your Photos!	7	01-16-2010 09:50 AM
Night Full Moon Fever! With Km and FAJ lens	cb750r	Post Your Photos!	2	12-02-2009 12:03 AM
Spring Fever	gMatt	Post Your Photos!	6	02-10-2009 02:29 PM
Spring fever	JMR	Post Your Photos!	13	01-20-2009 01:27 AM

05-19-2010, 05:37 PM	#16
bimjo Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Pasco, WA Posts: 967	Define "extreme" fisheye. As in not a round image? If you're looking at rectilinear fisheye lenses, but don't want the normal distortion you might consider the Zenitar 16mm. It's fishy, but not overly so. I sold mine and picked up the DA 10-17 for that reason. Depends on what your expectations are as to what you end up getting.

05-19-2010, 06:57 PM	#17
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	I don't see a lot of pf with my 10-17, except in extreme situations, like a lot of lenses. If you have a K-x or K-7 you can set the camera to correct for CA. Gotta love the 10-17's 1:2 close focus and saturated Pentax colour rendition.

05-19-2010, 07:05 PM	#18
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	$700 for the K 17/4 sounds high. Even for an A 16/2.8, and that is a darn nice lens if you can find one. The DA 10-17 is a more practical choice, probably, unless you highly value compactness. As I do. Zenitar 16/2.8 is supposed to be good as well, probably just what you are looking for.

05-19-2010, 08:11 PM	#20
hinman Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fremont, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,473	The Pentax DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 definitely get my vote if you ask me. PF is quite frequent when I use it on indoor shots with white lighting or nighttime shots with lots of bright lights. In outdoor use in daytime shooting, I don't see PF showing as much. Here are samples with K20D and the DA 10-17mm, please noted the PF in most of the white lights in the baseball field. 1/30 sec, f/4.5, 17mm, iso 800, 0 Ev 1/30 sec, f/4.5, 11mm, iso 800, 0 Ev 0.8 sec, f/4.5, 17mm, iso 160, -0.3 Ev, hand-held shot Pentax DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 With the DA zoom, you have the choice of getting the extreme fisheye subject in the widest end as in 10-13 while I can have the least fishy to almost like a normal wide angle in the 15-17mm end. It is one of those fun lens that I love having in my bag. Hin

05-19-2010, 08:24 PM	#21
hinman Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Fremont, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,473	Attempt on Meteor Night with the DA 10-17mm fisheye 30 sec, f/5.0, 10mm, iso 400, 0 Ev (with K20D) The lighted path come from a plane Meteor Night with DA 10-17 fish-eye Thanks, Hin

05-19-2010, 08:48 PM	#22
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by bimjo Define "extreme" fisheye. As in not a round image? If you're looking at rectilinear fisheye lenses, but don't want the normal distortion you might consider the Zenitar 16mm. It's fishy, but not overly so. I sold mine and picked up the DA 10-17 for that reason. Depends on what your expectations are as to what you end up getting. I think he means full 180 on APS-C. The Zen only gives about 120 degrees diagonal on my K10D. While the Zenitar is not particularly "fishy" on APS-C, it is by no means rectilinear...fisheyes never are. They all use some form of circular projection. Steve

05-21-2010, 05:01 AM	#26
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Yep, a few posts later (as I see now). It would however be nice if you gave the credits in the post that contained the photos.

05-21-2010, 05:51 AM	#27
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by sterretje Yep, a few posts later (as I see now). It would however be nice if you gave the credits in the post that contained the photos. I didn't have any intention to pass them off as mine, and I should have credited it from the first post. I'm just so blown away by those shots that I wasn't thinking.

05-21-2010, 07:51 AM	#28
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by Ira I didn't have any intention to pass them off as mine, and I should have credited it from the first post. I know, but it can be misinterpreted Originally posted by Ira I'm just so blown away by those shots that I wasn't thinking. I know, they are amazing.