[JoepLX3]

Hey There,

I am kind of a newbie, but thought it would be better to post this in the lens section than in beginners section.

Last week I bought an used Tamron 10-24 mm for ~250 Euro and now I might be able to buy an used Zenitar 16 mm F2.8 (manual focus) for ~75 Euro.

If I wouldn't have bought the UWA then I would of course buy this FE. But now I already own a decent UWA, what is the added value of such "weak" FE for me? Should I wait until I for example run into a Samyang 8 mm F3.5 FE?

Best regards,

Joep

[tomtor]

The fish eye effect of my 10-17 at 16 is moderate. It acts more as a rectilinear normal wide of 11mm.
You can look up the formula for diagonal angle of view on wikipedia. If you already own the 10-24 then buying the 16mm does not make much sense in my opinion.

[maverickh]

Hi I am unable to comment on a picture will look when taken with the Tamron 10-17 ( is it full frame ) . However if the Zenitar 16 mm F2.8 is mounted with a film camera ( full frame ) , the picture appear like this . ( PENTAX FE 16MM F/2.8 with LX )





and this







Hope the pictures gives you an idea.

[tomtor]

You cannot demonstrate the fisheye effect on a full frame because on an aps camera you will loose the borders and these contain the most of the fish eye effect.

Just cut 1/6th of each border and you will have the image you will get on a aps-c digital.

[interested_observer]

Take a look at these..

pentax Zenitar 16 mm F2.8 - Google Search

You need to check the camera body to make sure its a APS-c body (*ist ds or dl, K100, K10, K200, K20, km, k2000, kx, k7). But this should give you an idea along with the images that maverickh posted. I also think that there is a zenitar thread in the lenses area that would provide a set of images.

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/3561-zenitar-16mm.html
  
• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/2841-show-me-your-fisheye-shots.html
  
• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/3641-zenitar-fisheye-k10d.html

[Stringmike]

I have had a Zenitar 16mm since my DS days and still use it occasionally - it is optically quite good and a very solidly made lens. On the smaller sensor digital cameras, the fisheye effect is moderate and can be easily removed (I use PTlens). It may not be significantly different from the Tamron, although I don't have experience with that particular lens.

Mike

[stevebrot]

The short answer is that the Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye is very fishy compared to the Tamron 10-24. The reason I say this is because the Tammy is a rectilinear lens and the Zenitar is not. This is true regardless of sensor size, though the "bending" of straight lines that we associate with fisheye lenses may be less obvious with the smaller sensor.

I use my Zenitar as a wide-angle solution on my K10D with good results and can say with some confidence that it is possible to take quite natural looking landscape shots with this lens. In fact, I would hazard the opinion that the fisheye may actually look MORE natural than the same subject shot with a rectilinear wide angle, depending on composition and camera angle.

Here is a link to Zenitar 16/2.8 shots on my Flickr photostream. There is a mixture of 35mm film and K10D images, but it should be obvious which are which.

Flickr: Search fotostevia's photostream

As you might have noticed, the fishiness of the shot is highly dependent on camera angle and the orientation of straight lines to the lens axis. Here is a link to an architectural shot by forum member Lisa Casil taken with the Pentax 10-17 Fisheye. Notice that the straight lines are only marginally bent except for those that are not radial to the lens axis.

2 Towers | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In any case, the Zenitar is a decent lens and worth having in the bag, particularly if 35mm film is a possibility. (It is a ton of fun on film!)


Steve

[RioRico]

I'll agree with all the above, and add: The lens that initially drove me to Pentax was the great DA10-17, very fishy. But now, and especially indoors, I use the Zenitar much more. For E75 it's a great deal; it often goes for twice that. GRAB IT!! On FF it's quite fishy (my ZX-M loves it) and on APS-C it's moderately fishy, and rather faster than the 10-17 @ 16 (f/2.8 vs f/4.5). The Zenitar is small, agile, well-built, crisp; but as with any wide lens, you must pay close attention to angles.

[NaClH2O]

I can't comment on the Tamron but here is a pretty good example of the Z's "fishyness"

For some more samples of the Zenitar check here:
Zenitar Fish Eye Lens - saltwater's Photos
and here:
DC Architecture with a fish eye lens - saltwater's Photos
The "Z" as others have said the "Z" is a great lens, with one flaw, it is quite soft at f2.8 f3.5 is useable, and by f4.0 it is quite sharp. As you can see from my shots, it is only "somewhat" fishy, but I think that is a good thing. With careful framing and slight cropping you won't even know it's a fisheye.

NaCl(one of the better bargains in my bag)H2O

[JoepLX3]

Thanks for all feedback.

Although "Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye is very fishy compared to the Tamron 10-24" it looks like I am not going to invest 75 Euro, because I already have a UWA and:
- The fish eye effect of my 10-17 at 16 is moderate. It acts more as a rectilinear normal wide of 11mm.
- On the smaller sensor digital cameras, the fisheye effect is moderate and can be easily removed.
- As you can see from my shots, it is only "somewhat" fishy, but I think that is a good thing.

Or does somebody have a real good typical fishey APC-s picture with this lens for me?
- long lines and something in foreground

Best regards,

Joep

PS: If I would buy it for 75 Euro and hardly to not use it at all then I knowing myself I won't sell it nor buy a "stronger" fisheye lens. If it is fun and good enough then I would be happy, if it is fun and I want more then it would be fine too.

[stevebrot]

Or does somebody have a real good typical fishey APC-s picture with this lens for me?
- long lines and something in foreground

Would this do?

The blue, fabric-covered board behind the wooden car models was quite straight. If the camera is pointed up or down, horizontals take on a pretty decent bend.


Steve

[JoepLX3]

Yeah, this is pretty nice!!!
- So it can work well, but probably "only" with very close objects - mainly more indoor than outdoor

Do I have correct understanding?

[xjjohnno]

Some Zenit 16 samples for you.
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/qvmarket5/slides/PICT0546.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/qvmarket5/slides/PICT0617.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]
[IMGWIDELEFT]http://www.xjgarage.org/photos/qvmarket5/slides/PICT0570.JPG[/IMGWIDELEFT]

[JeffJS]

Here is my Zenitar on a film camera (some of them Are cropped).

Walking Woodmere Zenitar 16mm f2.8 FE - a set on Flickr

There are also some Zenitar photos in here..

K20d Infrared - a set on Flickr

Can't help you with the Tamron, don't, haven't, and probably won't own one.

[stevebrot]

Yeah, this is pretty nice!!!
- So it can work well, but probably "only" with very close objects - mainly more indoor than outdoor

Do I have correct understanding?

The fishiness depends on camera angle and subject. This is true even on FF. Here is are a couple of outdoor shots with the Zenitar on the K10D that are fishy enough and one that is not at all:











And it always helps when the subject is fish:




Steve