Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-26-2011, 08:48 AM   #1
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
DA 10-17mm vs Samyang/etc 8mm FE

Is one wider than the other? Or are they both equally 180 degree diagonal fisheyes on 1.5x crop?

05-26-2011, 09:39 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
According to the lens review database:
SMC Pentax-DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye ED [IF] Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database
"Diagonal FOV (APS-C) - 180-100 degrees"
Samyang 8mm F3.5 Fisheye CS Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database
"180 degree angular field (diagonal) on APS-C 1.5X"
05-26-2011, 09:57 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
Yes, but that didn't quite make sense to me as the Samyang is also referred to as 6.5mm and 7mm from other companies, although the 8mm full frame circular fisheye from Sigma is apparently wider on a crop. I wanted to see if anyone had done some actual comparisons.
05-26-2011, 10:18 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 302
Now that you've brought that up, I'm curious as well - because the difference is circular vs stereographic, does the stereographic projection on the Samyang cause more to crop, less to crop, or fit the same size?

05-26-2011, 10:23 AM   #5
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 686
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
Is one wider than the other? Or are they both equally 180 degree diagonal fisheyes on 1.5x crop?
They have different projections, and the Samyang is the very unusual (and pleasing) stereographic type:




The Lenstip review talks about this:

"Using such projection in photography results in the most eye-pleasing effects as in the corners of the frame, shapes remain the least deformed and the bending of straight lines is moderate for a fisheye. The problem with stereographic lenses is the difficulty of their making, which usually triggers high prices. To our complete surprise, the stereographic fisheye is offered by no one else but the cheap Samyang!"

Ken Rockwell also has some good comparisons to other fisheyes in his review:

"This Pro-Optic lens does a much better job of keeping things from getting too small at the periphery than the Nikons. In fact, this Pro-Optic lens does the best job of any fisheye at keeping balls round at the sides of the image. It's about twice as good as the Nikon lenses... I kid you not: even as-shot, the Pro-Optic covers more than the Nikon 10.5mm, and almost as much as the exotic Nikon 8mm that costs ten times as much, and the Pro-Optic fits it all into a rectangle... What I really love about the projection of the Pro-Optic is how the sides and corners render the subject much larger than the other fisheyes. I find this much more useful than squashing the sides into useless mush."
05-26-2011, 11:58 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by nater Quote
They have different projections, and the Samyang is the very unusual (and pleasing) stereographic type:




The Lenstip review talks about this:

"Using such projection in photography results in the most eye-pleasing effects as in the corners of the frame, shapes remain the least deformed and the bending of straight lines is moderate for a fisheye. The problem with stereographic lenses is the difficulty of their making, which usually triggers high prices. To our complete surprise, the stereographic fisheye is offered by no one else but the cheap Samyang!"

Ken Rockwell also has some good comparisons to other fisheyes in his review:

"This Pro-Optic lens does a much better job of keeping things from getting too small at the periphery than the Nikons. In fact, this Pro-Optic lens does the best job of any fisheye at keeping balls round at the sides of the image. It's about twice as good as the Nikon lenses... I kid you not: even as-shot, the Pro-Optic covers more than the Nikon 10.5mm, and almost as much as the exotic Nikon 8mm that costs ten times as much, and the Pro-Optic fits it all into a rectangle... What I really love about the projection of the Pro-Optic is how the sides and corners render the subject much larger than the other fisheyes. I find this much more useful than squashing the sides into useless mush."
Very interesting... I'd love to see some comparisons!
05-31-2011, 11:55 AM   #7
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
Bump for anyone who have experienced both.
06-04-2011, 06:19 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
Here's what I found from photozone:

8mm:


10-17mm:


The 10-17mm seems pretty close to the stereographic projection and not squishing too much.

Edit: it seems that the Samyang is the only real one, the rest are to show estimates.


Last edited by Eruditass; 06-04-2011 at 06:25 PM.
07-25-2011, 02:45 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Eruditass's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,206
Original Poster
For anyone interested, there are comparisons on fullframe that clearly show the projection differences:

Samyang Fisheye Lens short review
07-26-2011, 07:39 PM   #10
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,279
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
For anyone interested, there are comparisons on fullframe that clearly show the projection differences:

Samyang Fisheye Lens short review
M. Thoby definitely knows of what he speaks. You can tell by reading that link, he is a retired rocket-scientist (literally).

One thing I've noticed about the Samyang 8mm is that is lacks contrast compared to the DA10-17, and flare is more of an issue. The projection is nice, though...
07-26-2011, 11:57 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
I have the Samyang and I like it a lot. I find it contrasty, but then again, I never had the 10-17 to compare it with.

Some threads where samples can be found:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/33549-fisheye-fever-club-flaun...ye-photos.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/137335-samyang-lens-club.html
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax SMC DA 10-17mm or Samyang 8mm sixteen12 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 04-13-2011 12:18 AM
Samyang 8mm F3.5 Fisheye Lens mcjm78 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 10-19-2010 08:25 AM
Samyang 8mm fish - A setting? DaveHolmes Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 08-18-2010 03:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top