[Marc Sabatella]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Thanks Joe.......... I can see what you mean.

It's just the F Stop will kill the clarity of the shot as the Northern Lights are moving. (At F3.5 Patrick is saying the exposure = 50 seconds @ ISO 400)

I am positive now that I need something at least F2.8

The thing is, whatever shutter speed you get shooting at f/2.8 and ISO 400, you could also get shooting at ISO 560 and f/3.5, or ISO 800 and f/4. I know some people have are.uctance to turn ISO up past some sort of arbitrary pre-imposed lomit, but really, this thinking is extremely counterproductive. I seriously doubt you could tell the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 800 in a blindfold test except on a *very* large print. And by limiting your choices to f/2.8 lenses, you may be passing up on what is optically a better lens, a cheaper lens, a better focal length range, or otherwise the clearly more suitable lens.

[Chook]

The thing is, whatever shutter speed you get shooting at f/2.8 and ISO 400, you could also get shooting at ISO 560 and f/3.5, or ISO 800 and f/4. I know some people have are.uctance to turn ISO up past some sort of arbitrary pre-imposed lomit, but really, this thinking is extremely counterproductive. I seriously doubt you could tell the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 800 in a blindfold test except on a *very* large print. And by limiting your choices to f/2.8 lenses, you may be passing up on what is optically a better lens, a cheaper lens, a better focal length range, or otherwise the clearly more suitable lens.

Thanks Marc.................. Yes I ended up buying the Pentax DA 10-17.

It goes against my original bias because it is slower @ F3.5 & it's a Fisheye, but thanks to all the advice given here I have understood there are other advantages with this lens.

When the lens arrives I will do some practice, including ISO, bracketing, etc. to get the most out of it (ISO 800 with a Pentax K10D is probably ok but doubt it will do the 1600 without a lot of noise)

Cheers,
Arthur

[Marc Sabatella]

You might be surprised. The perception of noise depends not just on ISO level but also the color of the light, the type of textures and amount of detail present in the scene, whether you shoot JPEG or RAW and what camera settings or processing you do, and of course how much pixel peeping you do, etc. I've seen some ISO 1600 shots from the K10D that look pretty bad even at screen resolution, others that look just fine in 8x10 prints.

[RioRico]

You might be surprised. The perception of noise depends not just on ISO level but also the color of the light, the type of textures and amount of detail present in the scene, whether you shoot JPEG or RAW and what camera settings or processing you do, and of course how much pixel peeping you do, etc. I've seen some ISO 1600 shots from the K10D that look pretty bad even at screen resolution, others that look just fine in 8x10 prints.

Very good points. Also, brightness matters. High-ISO noise is apparent in shadows; if the entire image is brightly lit, the noise can be insignificant.

[Chook]

Very good points. Also, brightness matters. High-ISO noise is apparent in shadows; if the entire image is brightly lit, the noise can be insignificant.

I don't think brightness will help me at all: I will be in the Arctic Circle in December taking photos at night of the northern lights (i think they only get 2 hours daylight per day while I am there)

[RioRico]

I don't think brightness will help me at all: I will be in the Arctic Circle in December taking photos at night of the northern lights (i think they only get 2 hours daylight per day while I am there)

Was that you a few weeks ago with questions about fast lenses for shooting aurorae?

If that was someone else: I suggested using wide lenses with not-too-long exposures and not-too-high ISO. A rectilinear 12/4 has the same motion-stopping effect as a 24/2, and a fisheye 10/3.5 has about 4- or 5-f-stops advantage over those. I suggested fisheyes: the DA10-17 @10mm for full-sky shots, and the Zenitar 16/2.8 for quarter-sky shots. You'll still want to tripod them, but you should be able to shoot aurorae with low ISO, and shutter speeds no slower than a few seconds.

EDIT: I just checked. Yeah, it's post #21 in this very thread! My recommendations still stand.

[Chook]

Was that you a few weeks ago with questions about fast lenses for shooting aurorae? If that was someone else: I suggested using wide lenses with not-too-long exposures and not-too-high ISO. A rectilinear 12/4 has the same motion-stopping effect as a 24/2, and a fisheye 10/3.5 has about 4- or 5-f-stops advantage over those. I suggested fisheyes: the DA10-17 @10mm for full-sky shots, and the Zenitar 16/2.8 for quarter-sky shots. You'll still want to tripod them, but you should be able to shoot aurorae with low ISO, and shutter speeds no slower than a few seconds.

Yep.....it was me (in this same thread).

It was your advice that convinced me to get the DA10-17 Fisheye as I would get full sky & sharper shots.

Now time to practice with it before December. Keen to try all the advice folk have given me in this thread.

Cheers,
Arhtur

[Chook]

Good news is I received my Pentax DA 10-17 Fisheye Lens today :-)

Here are some photos of my Indian Ringneck Bird I took with it (lens was so close he was trying to eat it !!!!)

I can also see what you mean about keeping your feet out of shot (amazing)

[Vylen]

Fish-eye lenses really do work for these fun close up shots don't they I'd say you made an excellent purchase!

Funnily enough, I just got my copy of the Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 today as well... seems like we're both going to have some fun learning and experimenting!

[top-quark]

Fast wideangle primes, such as the Pentax and Samyang 14mm lenses, tend to be absolute behemoths.

I've been wondering for a while about the suitability of a high-quality compact to take their place.

The GRD seems to offer, on paper at least, quite a powerful specification: 28mm equivalent, F1.9 and only weighs a couple of hundred grams or so. You can get an adaptor (which is presumably optically well paired with the lens) to take this to 21mm equivalent - the same FOV as 14mm on APS-C.

Yes, I know it's a small sensor camera and all that, but is has an excellent reputation for optical quality and even semi-decent high ISO performance. The things we love about large sensors - bokeh and subject isolation - aren't really an issue when shooting wide (although F1.9 presumably gives you respectable isolation when your subject is close).

Another alternative could be the LX5 which, I believe, starts at 24mm equivalent without needing an adaptor.

[Col]

Good news is I received my Pentax DA 10-17 Fisheye Lens today :-)

Here are some photos of my Indian Ringneck Bird I took with it (lens was so close he was trying to eat it !!!!)

I can also see what you mean about keeping your feet out of shot (amazing)

Fisheye or Cuttlefisheye. Your bird seems to want to sharpen its beak.

[zapp]

You cannot have everything in one lens. A fast ultrawide lens will be huge and of not so perfect quality for an SLR camera. Do you want to pay for all the glass or do you want it cheap as well.
Some photographic basics would help to understand why you will not find what you want in Pentax land. The only really good large aperture wide angles are made for Leica M mount - different story.

[the_ul]

Could someone please help a bit? With non-existing budget i'm aiming either 58mm 58 mm 0.21X wide fisheye lens for Canon Nikon DSLR | eBay or 58mm 0.45x Macro WIDE Angle LENS 62mm Front Thread | eBay
Attaching something like that to the quite pointless 18-55 kit (otherwise i only use my wonderful 35mm 2.4) will make it a fun toy to play with, but how bad the image quality will actually be? Will there be someone helpful enough to share some sample shots?

[RioRico]

Could someone please help a bit? With non-existing budget i'm aiming either 58mm 58 mm 0.21X wide fisheye lens for Canon Nikon DSLR | eBay or 58mm 0.45x Macro WIDE Angle LENS 62mm Front Thread | eBay
Attaching something like that to the quite pointless 18-55 kit (otherwise i only use my wonderful 35mm 2.4) will make it a fun toy to play with, but how bad the image quality will actually be? Will there be someone helpful enough to share some sample shots?

I haven't either of those, but I have similar.

I have this Precision Design 0.25x adapter: Precision Design 0.25X Super AF FishEye Lens - (nikon canon camera photography) 793573429308 | eBay which cost me US$20 (shipped) a few months ago. It came with a set of adapter rings so it can be used directly on lenses with front threads of 52-55-58-62mm. It is on my DA18-55 at this very moment. It's full-circle fisheye at 18-20mm, frame-filling at 40mm on my K20D. It's a fun toy and the IQ isn't as bad as with the Kenko 180 Degree Fisheye adapter, which is *much* slower (and suitable for 35-80mm zooms). Image center isn't bad; image edges aren't good.

And that's the best I can say for my medium strap-on adapters: Brons 0.42x, Ambico and Crystal Vision 0.5x. (That last was terribly expensive.) The best of my wide adapters is a Schneider Xenar Wide 0.7x with 55mm threads, but 0.7x isn't very wide. I'd say that none of the 0.4x-0.7x adapters is worth putting on the DA18-55, and neither is the Kenko Fisheye. The Precision Design 0.25x is a fun toy when cheap enough. Good luck!

[Marc Sabatella]

Could someone please help a bit? With non-existing budget i'm aiming either 58mm 58 mm 0.21X wide fisheye lens for Canon Nikon DSLR | eBay or 58mm 0.45x Macro WIDE Angle LENS 62mm Front Thread | eBay
Attaching something like that to the quite pointless 18-55 kit (otherwise i only use my wonderful 35mm 2.4) will make it a fun toy to play with, but how bad the image quality will actually be? Will there be someone helpful enough to share some sample shots?

18mm is already a *ton* wider than 35mm, and it's a very "natural" focal length for most people. No way is that pointless. Adding something that would give you bad IQ at a gimmicky wide focal length - now *that* strikes me as pointless.