Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-08-2012, 04:31 AM   #1
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Fisheye Help...

I've had my eye on a FE for a while to experiment with more creative photography, and I was wondering - what are your recommendations for a FE?

I was originally looking at the DA 10-17, which on all accounts seems to be an excellent lens. I do love the distortion control one has with it via the zoom, which is severely less "fishy" at the long end, which a lot of people seem to like as a landscape lens with minimal distortions as well.

But then I thought about it, and since I have the Sigma 8-16 (oh my, what a glorious lens) already, wouldn't it make more sense to get a dedicated FE? I was looking at the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/any-other-badges-I've-missed as the best solution, however there seems to be a lot of complaints of very, very poor sharpness until at least f/5.6. While a tripod would negate this, it still brings a concern for impromptu shooting (interiors as one example).

So my questions/options are:

1) Since I already have the unbelievably wide rectilinear 8-16 (if you haven't used one - HIGHLY recommended), would it make more sense to get a dedicated FE since the non-distorted ultra wide FL's are covered by the 8-16? (This is my current thinking...)

2) If not, would the 10-17 make a more suitable recommendation? it seems that the difference between 8mm and 10mm in a FE is a HUGE difference - even more so than rectilinear...

3) If neither, what other recommendations? I've become aware of the Sigma 10 f/2.8 FE, but at $600+, it's very pricey to justify as JUST a FE.

Thanks for your help

-Heie

09-08-2012, 04:41 AM   #2
Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,060
Cannot answer your question. I have never used a FE. Good to see you are still thinking of photography. For some reason I just thought of you today, wondered if you were OK.
09-08-2012, 04:55 AM   #3
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
Since you already have the Sigma 8-16, I'd get the fishy-est fixed focal length fisheye you can find. (say that 3 times fast.) Something like a 6 or 8mm. I've heard good things about the Opteka/Samyang 8mm fisheye. Here's a review.

I have the DA 10-17 & it's a great and versatile lens, but you already have that range covered, so...

Good luck & stay safe,
Bobbo :-)
09-08-2012, 06:04 AM   #4
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
I was researching the Samyang FE before I bought the DA15. I do not recall problems with its sharpness at all. As a matter of fact I found reviewers who were stunned at its built quality, IQ, and price. Certainly there will be variation with any lens but the reviews I found were very positive. All lenses sharpen up as the are stopped down but my recollection on the FE 8mm is that shots at 3.5 were reported to be excellent. I've never shot FE, not even back in my SLR days, so I'm still fascinated by the possibilities that the Samyang 8mm presents. Good luck in your pursuit.

09-08-2012, 06:23 AM   #5
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tim60 Quote
Cannot answer your question. I have never used a FE. Good to see you are still thinking of photography. For some reason I just thought of you today, wondered if you were OK.
I probably spend too much time thinking about photography considering my circumstances lol. But it is what I have to keep me sane, and as best as the pre-Photokina hype can allow, it's doing its job well

And I appreciate the concern - as of 08 1753 SEP 12 Local (08 1323 SEP 12 Zulu) time all is well on this front

QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
Since you already have the Sigma 8-16, I'd get the fishy-est fixed focal length fisheye you can find. (say that 3 times fast.) Something like a 6 or 8mm. I've heard good things about the Opteka/Samyang 8mm fisheye. Here's a review. I have the DA 10-17 & it's a great and versatile lens, but you already have that range covered, so... Good luck & stay safe, Bobbo :-)
My thoughts exactly...

Much appreciated!

QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
I was researching the Samyang FE before I bought the DA15. I do not recall problems with its sharpness at all. As a matter of fact I found reviewers who were stunned at its built quality, IQ, and price. Certainly there will be variation with any lens but the reviews I found were very positive. All lenses sharpen up as the are stopped down but my recollection on the FE 8mm is that shots at 3.5 were excellent. I've never shot FE, not even back in my SLR days, so I'm still fascinated by the possibilities that the Samyang 8mm presents. Good luck in your pursuit.
Hey Doc,

Yea the Sam 8mm FE and the 15 ltd are completely different animals lol. I guess I must have misread somewhere and mis-attributed that to the Samyang 8mm (and over here, I can't blame it on alcohol ), because I looked again, and it seemed to be quite the impressive performer.

I've never toyed with a FE either, but some of the shots that I've seen have been extremely intriguing and has piqued my curiosity.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Off Topic - Something that I've toyed with in my mind is whether there a way to make a FE that is similar to the 10-17 but instead of "zooming in focal length" you zoom only in "fishyness." As in, you have an 8 or 10mm fixed focal length FE, yet you can "zoom in and out the fishyness" ? Kinda like an aperture ring, but instead of f stops it's in degrees/percentage of distortion, from 0 (rectilinear [if that's even possible]), 5, 10, 15, etc until whatever degree of distortion. Or maybe angle of view increments? Regardless, the point stays the same.

Thoughts?

-Heie
09-08-2012, 07:22 AM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter
blackcloudbrew's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Cotati, California USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,784
After I bought my K10d in 2008 with a kit lens and a cheap telephoto, the DA10-17 was the first lens I bought. It opened my creative eyes and ... my career in LBA addiction as well. However, even though I now have a Sigma 8mm fully fishy lens, t he 10-17 is a much more versatile lens because it goes from fishy to not fishy in the 10-17 range and essentially lets you control the fishiness of the image. It also has, BTW a very fun close focus properties that lets you way close to subjects. Personally given what you said, I'd get the DA10-17 without too much concern.

WRT fisheye lenses, I can't find the link now (of course) but a while back I read through a nice website on how to compose with a FE lens. The basic take away point is that control of the horizon line (let's call that the line through the center of the image from L-R) is what you need to compose with. if it's level then the distortion will be above and below the line, but bend that line downward and the distorted area changes greatly in the composition as it does when you bend it upwards. I usually center the horizon on a shot then move up or down to get the sense of what's the better image. Hope that made sense.
09-08-2012, 07:27 AM   #7
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,287
QuoteOriginally posted by Heie Quote
But then I thought about it, and since I have the Sigma 8-16 (oh my, what a glorious lens) already, wouldn't it make more sense to get a dedicated FE? I was looking at the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower/any-other-badges-I've-missed as the best solution
A fisheye of a similar focal length will go wider than a rectilinear (8mm Sigma vs. 8mm Samyang) because it uses a different distortion. (Don't fool yourself into thinking your 8-16 has no distortion, it's just stretch as opposed to inflate & squish!) The Samyang 8mm uses a slightly corrected fisheye projection (stereographic), so it isn't as distorted around the center as a traditional 8mm "circular" fisheye. The Pentax 10-17 is a "diagonal fisheye" which is essentially a circular fisheye that is (optically) cropped to fill the frame with 180 degrees of image across the diagonal at 10mm, so the distortion at the extreme edges of the circle aren't seen. When you zoom out to 17mm you are getting even less of the edges where the distortion is, but as you can imagine, even less of your field of view!

So the manual focus Samyang 8mm is your cheapest option (new) and a very good lens if you are allergic to extreme distortion. It will give you some of that "fishyness" without being too distorted like a Peleng 8mm or the old Sigma 8mm circular fisheyes. (See this flash animation for a comparison of the distortion amounts - click-drag to scroll through the images (merci Dr. Thoby!))

That said, I own all of these fisheyes (and the Sigma 4.5mm, and others, - I'm something of a fisheye collector because I love both the distortion and the crazy ultrawide view of fisheyes!), and my favorite of all of them is the DA 10-17mm; the colors are fantastic, the sharpness is great (for a fisheye, which means dubious edge sharpness), the size is manageably small, the build is robust (metal!), and the zoom and AF are handy to have sometimes. That's why I have two of them, I guess! (Or maybe because one of them is locked into a pano-rig ring!)

One note about the image quality from all fisheyes: I hope you're comfortable removing chromatic aberration and vignetting in post-processing, since these extreme fields of view have to give in to physics somewhere, and that's the bingo! (And despite later posts to the apparent contrary, the Samyang does have plenty of CA and distortion - see that comparison animation I linked to above.)

QuoteOriginally posted by Heie Quote
Off Topic - Something that I've toyed with in my mind is whether there a way to make a FE that is similar to the 10-17 but instead of "zooming in focal length" you zoom only in "fishyness."
It would need a flexible optic, not glass, since that is what produces the "fishyness." Not impossible, but improbable any time soon.

Last edited by panoguy; 09-08-2012 at 10:23 AM.
09-08-2012, 07:50 AM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,034
Good Morning - and I have not factored in the time difference so it may be dinner time over there.....

Where do I start..... I have a wide selection of lenses at the wide end, including the 10-17, 8-16 and the 12-24. The focal length comparison is only valid when comparing apples to apples, e.g., rectilinear to rectilinear, not fish-eye to rectilinear. So, the comparison to use is Field of View (FoV) as expressed in degrees.

The 10-17 fisheye has a corner to corner FoV of 180 degrees, but for side to side, what is it? Pentax does not indicate (nor will they say). So, I pulled out my trusty CRC vintage 1965 and did some figuring (fingers and toes included).... The reason for this is to be able to compare edge to edge FoV with the rectilinear lenses Bottom line is somewhere between 135 and 150 degrees. Why the range? In fisheye optics they use a spherical reference model, and what Pentax does not indicate is what are the parameters/type of the spherical projection they used for the optics. So 150 is the calculated FoV (using a nominal spherical projection) and 135 +/- is the observed. Now, just a note - I was careful, but not painstakingly exact. My method was good, but I was not writing a paper for a peer reviewed scientific journal. So, I would put the actual measurement somewhere in-between. Exactly where, depends on how radical you believe the spherical projection used actually is. Also, in the link above Rico and I were thinking that the Pentax 10-17 used some type of hybrid spherical projection in order to blend out the bend so well by 17mm. Here is an excellent reference on fisheye spherical projections....Ok, so we are done with all of the mathematical nonsense (its enough during the week 7am to 7pm - this is the weekend). Comparison time, so here are the maximum FoV (edge to edge), and I am going with the most conservative numbers.
  • 10-17 FE - 135 degrees +/-
  • 8-16 - 114 degrees
  • 12-24 - 90 degrees
Now, the primes. I'll digress back into optics for a minute. Regardless of the lens' focal length, they are all 180 degrees corner to corner.. Where they vary is in two specific areas....
  • Are they full frame lenses - If they are a full frame lens, then on a cropped sensor, you are not getting the full 180 degrees corner to corner, thus the fisheye effect is significantly reduced. Essentially, you are just getting the center of the lens. In this case the most important aspect in terms of what view you will be getting is the next question - the projection used. So, you really need to only compare full frame to full frame, and cropped lenses to other cropped lenses. Zentier comes to mind, where its a full frame lens, and on a cropped sensor its fish eye bend is pretty mild.
  • What is the type of projection they use - Depending on the projection actually used, this will determine what type of view you actually get.
Next, let's talk about sharpness and IQ. On a fisheye lens, you are going to get a tremendous field of view, to the extent that each pixel will need to represent a large amount of area. Also, remember its area - so its length x width. This is important. If you are thinking of comparing the sharpness of say a 15mm lens to say a 10mm, the amount of area represented per pixel may be actually squared (not just doubled). So sharpness as a criteria is out. Image quality, contrast and richness of color are more important.

Another aspect is the - back to projections again - sorry. The 8-16 has a pretty radical set of distortions near the edge (put the main object near the edge [especially with lots of straight vertical lines] and shoot a frame). Fisheye lenses have a completely different set of distortions - the bend. These are as different as oil and water.

Alright, so where am I going with all of this. My suggestion is the Pentax 10-17 - why, because its the zoom. The Pentax/Tokina FE zoom lens is unique, Canon / Nikon / Sony / Olympus do not offer these. The zoom adds such a range of versatility that the primes do no offer. In rectilinear lens space, zoom works against sharpness and IQ, while primes take advantage of these aspects. In fisheye space, sharpness and IQ concerns are diminished in importance due to the wide field of view, and the pixel area represented is ballooned up so much that comparisons go out the window. What does matter is the additional capability to compose the frame - that is provided by the photographer behind the camera. My opinion, is that with FE lenses, the photographer is even more important, and the ability to frame/compose the shot adds an additional dimension to the mix - and that is where the zoom comes into play. Also, by slightly tipping the camera up or down from perfectly horizontal, you - the photographer are able to move the bend, and place it where you want it, and to the degree that the bend is a bend. The closer to the edge the bend is - the greater the bend is amplified.




Last edited by interested_observer; 09-08-2012 at 08:21 PM.
09-08-2012, 08:09 AM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by blackcloudbrew Quote
the 10-17 is a much more versatile lens because it goes from fishy to not fishy in the 10-17 range and essentially lets you control the fishiness of the image. It also has, BTW a very fun close focus properties that lets you way close to subjects.
Yep... Those traits are what I love about it. (and that I got it for $50.) It's like a combination fisheye & regular wide angle lens in one tasty enchilada.

You know... It might sound nutty, but my wife has a cheap Ambico fisheye attachment that gives her pretty good results when screwed onto her 18-55 kit lens. Optically it's not the DA 10-17, obviously... But it not as bad as you might think, and you can vary the FOV and fishy-ness by zooming. Sharpness goes out the window the closer you get to the edge of the image, but the center's pretty decent. You also don't fill the frame with it like the 10-17, but it's fun & fishy.

Last edited by GibbyTheMole; 09-08-2012 at 08:17 AM.
09-08-2012, 08:12 AM   #10
Veteran Member
demp10's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Atlanta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 602
I have the Samyang 8mm (Bower branding) and it is a fun lens. It is very sharp even at 100% crops with no flares or chromatic aberration to speak off. It has a rather pleasing distortion that can easily be manipulated in Lightromm if you need to pronounce or reduce it. Everything along its center line both vertical and horizontal has no distortion and if used properly for landscapes you get undistorted horizons with dramatic foregrounds and sky. It does cover 180 degrees diagonally.

It is manual focus but at relevant apertures (e.g. F5.6 or F8) the hyperfocal distance is somewhere from 20 inches to infinity so set it and forget it. It has the "A" setting so all the auto modes work.

One think I noticed is the exposure can be tricky sometimes since there is so much sky in the frame and if there is a lot of high contrast in the scene you end with over/under exposures. Lightroom makes an excellent job equalizing the scene even with its default RAW processing.

Best of all it was only $289, almost half than the Pentax 10-17 which was the other lens I was considering.
09-08-2012, 10:37 AM   #11
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,838
I started with old fisheyes meant for film, the Zenitar and Sigma 16mm f2.8 lenses. They are fun but with today's high-MP sensors and an ultrawide rectilinear zoom, you could probably duplicate the effect in software. Even the Pentax DCU has a distortion slider. A key difference between Sigma and Zenitar is minimum focus distance. It's very useful to have a small MFD.

When I wanted more, I strongly considered the Samyang, by all accounts a great performer and I think a good price too. I went with the DA 10-17 for size, AF and the ability to zoom and change the effect. I normally don't care about AF, but a fisheye makes details very tiny in the viewfinder, making MF harder. The DOF is huge so you can get by with guessing distance, but AF can be an asset. For me, the DA 10-17 also fills in for the UWA zoom you already have. Otherwise the widest I have is a DA 16-45.

Fisheyes are often available used and in great shape, because people buy them and don't like the effect, or don't use it much. I paid about $375 used maybe 6 months ago.
09-09-2012, 12:04 AM   #12
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by panoguy Quote
A fisheye of a similar focal length will go wider than a rectilinear (8mm Sigma vs. 8mm Samyang) because it uses a different distortion. (Don't fool yourself into thinking your 8-16 has no distortion, it's just stretch as opposed to inflate & squish!) The Samyang 8mm uses a slightly corrected fisheye projection (stereographic), so it isn't as distorted around the center as a traditional 8mm "circular" fisheye. The Pentax 10-17 is a "diagonal fisheye" which is essentially a circular fisheye that is (optically) cropped to fill the frame with 180 degrees of image across the diagonal at 10mm, so the distortion at the extreme edges of the circle aren't seen. When you zoom out to 17mm you are getting even less of the edges where the distortion is, but as you can imagine, even less of your field of view!
I guess I wasn't clear and came across incorrectly - I am very well aware of the distortion the 8-16 has - outside it is minimal because everything is so far away (for landscapes) but indoors, yes it can be problematic. I am well aware of that

But I was not aware that there was any difference between FE distortion types - that is news to me. I guess that would make sense why the 10-17 seemed to render a more "even" and pleasing distortion across the frame compared to the Samyang...? I just didn't know there was an actual physical reason behind it.

And that link you gave me was excellent! That was an outstanding comparison of the different FE's of the same scene, and really gave good insight into their differences. I did some looking around that domain a bit and came up with this (in case you or anyone reading this wasn't aware of these):

Michael Thoby's Domain with almost 45 links of FE detective-work:
About Panography

Locate the Nodal Point of a FE:
Introduction: The objectives

Extremely Comprehensive Multi-FE Review, Including the 10-17 (however revolving around the Canon 8-15)
Canon 8-15 mm Fisheye Zoom for panorama: a review

Similar "Drag Comparison" For Fisheye's as what You Provided Earlier - More Comprehensive using all Focal Length's
http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Canon_8-15mm/Fisheyes_galore/Fisheye_Images_Galore.html

"Drag Comparison" of Similar Scene to what you Posted (90 degree turn to left) - Same Lenses/Focal Lengths
http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/1110andCo.swf

"Drag Comparison" of Samyang 8mm FE Only - Aperture Comparison
http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/SAMYANG_780x520.swf

"Drag Comparison" of Tokina (Pentax) 10-17mm FE Only - Aperture Comparison (Presumably @ 10mm)
http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/TOKINA_780x520.swf

"Drag Comparison" of Sigma 4mm FE Only - Aperture Comparison
http://michel.thoby.free.fr/SAMYANG/SIGMA-f4_780x520.swf

The Above three "Drag Comparisons" all use the same exact scene


10-17 Comparison Shots
Preview_Tokina_Nikkor_Canon

A Study on Flare
Flare is unveiled 24-105mm

Panorama Expected Resolutions from FE Lenses
Expected resolution from a Stitched Panorama

QuoteOriginally posted by panoguy Quote
I hope you're comfortable removing chromatic aberration and vignetting in post-processing,
I only shoot in RAW - no JPG, so I am not afraid of a little PP And while removing/adding vignette's is no issue - how exactly do you remove CA? That is one I still have trouble with... (I use LR 3.6)

QuoteOriginally posted by panoguy Quote
It would need a flexible optic, not glass, since that is what produces the "fishyness." Not impossible, but improbable any time soon.
Then what about in the same manner as a tilt-shift, where the optic is displaced somehow (vertically/horizontally - then wouldn't that just be a "zoom" feature for vertically?) to create the effect? TS's are prime lenses, and can be altered this way - why not a FE with a different portion of the internals being "tilted/shifted" ?

-Heie
09-09-2012, 02:49 AM   #13
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
My suggestion is the Pentax 10-17
After doing more reading, I agree. I came across this thread

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/181562-focal-...vs-8-16mm.html

And this image within it:



Yes that is the 10-17 vs the 12-24, but the principles still apply that it will be significantly wider, as well as have the "fishy" quality to it.

This even goes all the way to 8mm, which shows how much different the 8mm rectilinear is from the 10mm FE:



So if I understand correctly, the 8mm FE on APS-C extends beyond the image circle? It seems to have VERY heavy vignetting, and not of the "underexposed" type that is correctable in PP. Can anyone that has the Samyang 8mm confirm/deny this is the case? The 10mm seems much more natural and unaffected.

Also, does anyone happen to have all three? An 8mm FE, 10-17mm FE, AND Sigma 8-16? I'd absolutely love to see a comparison of the these focal lengths (8, 10-12mm, 16mm).

Right now I am leaning more towards the 10-17 - I just want to make sure that I am not missing a whole long between 8 and 10 on the wide side, which was the reason I went with the 8-16 over any of the 10-20's.

Thanks!

-Heie

Last edited by Heie; 09-09-2012 at 03:32 AM.
09-09-2012, 03:54 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
Yep... Those traits are what I love about it. (and that I got it for $50.) It's like a combination fisheye & regular wide angle lens in one tasty enchilada.
I was not aware of the close focus - that opens a new realm of creative possibilities....

QuoteOriginally posted by GibbyTheMole Quote
You know... It might sound nutty, but my wife has a cheap Ambico fisheye attachment that gives her pretty good results when screwed onto her 18-55 kit lens. Optically it's not the DA 10-17, obviously... But it not as bad as you might think, and you can vary the FOV and fishy-ness by zooming. Sharpness goes out the window the closer you get to the edge of the image, but the center's pretty decent. You also don't fill the frame with it like the 10-17, but it's fun & fishy.
Hmmm....that's an idea - find a FE adapter that will fit on the 8-16

QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
Fisheyes are often available used and in great shape, because people buy them and don't like the effect, or don't use it much. I paid about $375 used maybe 6 months ago.
Yea that is what I am getting at - I see the Samyang for $280-$300, but I can definitely score a 10-17 at < $350 as long as I'm patient and one comes around. Which then negates the price difference between the two - I am after ultimate quality, and while versatility is won by the 10-17 hands down, I am just afraid that there would be too much overlap with the 8-16 (granted, with different types/levels of distortion), and too much lost angle by not going with the 8mm - that is my current/refined dilemma.

-Heie
09-09-2012, 04:48 AM   #15
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,034
QuoteOriginally posted by Heie Quote
....

So if I understand correctly, the 8mm FE on APS-C extends beyond the image circle? It seems to have VERY heavy vignetting, and not of the "underexposed" type that is correctable in PP. Can anyone that has the Samyang 8mm confirm/deny this is the case? The 10mm seems much more natural and unaffected.

Also, does anyone happen to have all three? An 8mm FE, 10-17mm FE, AND Sigma 8-16? I'd absolutely love to see a comparison of the these focal lengths (8, 10-12mm, 16mm).

Right now I am leaning more towards the 10-17 - I just want to make sure that I am not missing a whole long between 8 and 10 on the wide side, which was the reason I went with the 8-16 over any of the 10-20's.

Thanks!

-Heie
Morning Heie,

I had to get up for a drink of water and a pit stop. I made the mistake of sitting down in the kitchen and surfing the web for a couple of minutes. The joys of getting old....

The one name that comes to mind with possibly all three lenses is Panoguy. Actually, I have not done this as of yet, but there is a hillside not too far from here that I use somewhat as a "lab". I might drive over and get some shots between the 8-16 and the 10-17. That might be interesting.

As to what you may be leaving on the table, in terms of view between the 10-17 and a prime 8 FE, I believe can be illustrated by this link. It runs a comparison between the 8FE and the 15FE against the 12-24 which is a rectilinear.That was quite a list of links on the topic of fisheye lenses - a number of them were new to me. Thanks!! I did not realize that Canon has come out with a 8-15FE that matches up quite nicely with the Pentax/Tokina 10-17 ($400-$500 and change vs $1100 and change).If you take a look at the above link - figure 2 (the bottom line of diagrams), I think that is probably the description of how the 10-17 deals with the view. What you are referring to in terms of "VERY heavy vignetting" is the image circle of the lens within the sensor frame. I do not believe that the Samyang 8mm does that - but I don't know for sure. What I believe it does is to play with the hemisphere that is in view, at 8mm and grab the widest possible extent. What that means in terms of the difference in the field of view between 8mm and 10mm I can't quantify exactly. I don't have the lens, so I went looking a bit and found this set of comparisons. This link has a direct comparison between the two at 8 and 10mmThe difference is a bit of view against the additional variability of the zoom.

I guess the best comparison I found was this...

from somewhere within this posting....My takeaway from the image is that the possible difference is 180 degrees edge to edge (8mm) vs corner to corner (10mm), and the useability of the difference. That is something that only you can determine. In some respects, that is what I was walking my way towards, when I was trying to determine the Field of View of the 10-17 in the other post.

Here is yet another interesting comparison - and my French is non-existent. Well, I am going to wander back to bed. My wife wants me to get up "early" and go get absolutely "fresh" bagels from the bagel shop for breakfast.... Stay safe!!

PS - This link indicates that the Samyang 8mm has the APS-c frame within the image circle.
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!
fe, k-mount, lens, lot, pentax lens, recommendations, sense, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fisheye Fever Club -- Flaunt your fisheye photos! troyz Lens Clubs 2933 05-14-2017 08:36 AM
Fisheye ? smack1019 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 02-13-2012 09:54 AM
Inexpensive fisheye and semi-fisheye adapters? billiam Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 8 11-09-2010 02:08 PM
Opteka Fisheye Adapter vs. Opteka 6.5mm fisheye goldenarrow Ask B&H Photo! 2 08-11-2010 04:04 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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