Originally posted by Turbo_Spool900 I'm looking into getting my first fisheye and it's a toss up between the Zenitar 16mm and the DA 10-17mm.
First of all I take it that the Zenitar can be used on both film and digital, which is a major selling point for me because I use both. As far as quality goes, though, how does the Z compare to the Pentax DA? The DA is over twice the price, but do you get twice the image quality? The zoom function isn't THAT appealing to me on the DA, but I don't want to skimp on glass.
Is the DA worth saving for over the Zenitar?
As I've mentioned, I have both. The Zen and Tokina-made 21/3.8 and 24/2.8 spend a lot of time both on my ZX-M (where they are WIDE) and on my K20D. The DA10-17 came first, one of my original Pentax lenses and indeed it's the lens that first drove me to Pentax. But now I use the Zen more (see below).
On FF the Zen is nicely fishy; on APS-C it's like a bent 24mm. The 10-17 is more versatile; the Zen is handier, noticeably faster at that FL (f/2.8 vs f/4.5). The Zen is all manual, the 10-17 is all auto.
It's rather like the difference between my F35-70/3.5-4.5 and my M50/2. Wide-open IQ of the 10-17 is a wee bit better than the Zen, but that's likely because it's slower. Stop-down the Zen a bit and its IQ is quite good. To my delaminating eyeballs, from f/5.6 up they're about the same. Images at the same f-stop on the Zen, and the 10-17 @16, are hard for me to tell apart; so no, at 16mm you DON'T get twice the quality. But the 10-17's quality is quite good throughout its entire range, and 10mm is NOT at all like 16mm.
These are different tools for different applications. If you want extreme-to-moderate distortion, to work in small and/or rounded spaces, to play with geometry, the 10-17 is splendid. If you want an affordable UW lens with moderate distortion (on APS-C) for handheld use indoors and out, the Zen is splendid. I'd rate the Zen as a very good everyday working lens, and the 10-17 as more for special occasions. I would not part with either of them.