[rozzercass]

does anyone know of some fairly cheap fish eye lenses for the k-30 under the $100 margin? have been looking myself but am struggling as the ones i find are rare!
any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Rory

[mde1970]

does anyone know of some fairly cheap fish eye lenses for the k-30 under the $100 margin? have been looking myself but am struggling as the ones i find are rare!
any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Rory

I'd recommend saving a little more and buying the Samyang 8mm (also sold under a few othe rbrand names). It's very sharp and has a great reputation.

You can pick them up for approx £150 second hand in the UK (not sure how this relates to the US market).

[Kerrowdown]

As market appeal was more limited fish eyes lenses, they tended to be manufactured in smaller volumes, hence higher prices.

Also optically they have a much tougher job to do, making them technically more difficult, hence more expensive.

So to get a good one you may need to increase your budget a bit, let your LBA be fed.

[tcbubbleleo]

I have owned a "Kenko(with a few other names,)" 8mm attachment, although screw onto the filter, has it own aperture ring, IQ not good. I haven't tried the others screw on filter style of "fisheye" lens, but my bet they are not good as well..

I also have owned the 10-17mm (sold,) and Bower 8mm(selling now,) former is more expensive, but versatile, latter I am selling it for $215 now. Bower is pretty awesome of it price, sharp prime, but is a bit more than your budget.....

[reeftool]

Those fisheye attachments generally don't have very good IQ. Be patient and save up for something decent. I love my Da 10-17 and use it far more than I ever thought I would. The Samyang versions are well spoken of also.

[Na Horuk]

under the $100 margin?

That is pretty much impossible. Very few lenses go for under 100, and they will either be 50mm (because that is a very popular focal length and not too hard to fabricate) or used/old/obsolete.
Look for the Zenitar 16mm, that is the cheapest fisheye out there, but its also not very sharp and may need some adjusting at home once you get it (there is a website that tells you what to adjust and how).
Another cheap one is the Peleng 8mm, made in Belarus. Can't really vouch for its quality either. Look at the Lens reviews and Sample photos sections on these forums.
The next cheapest fisheye is probably the Samyang 8mm. It is also sold under the following names: Rokinon, Pro Optic, Walimex, Bower, Falcon,.. and possibly others. This lens is usually reviewed as "surprisingly good" and "great IQ at that cost", probably a better idea than the Soviet alternatives.
But why do you need a fisheye? Fisheyes have very specific uses and are pretty hard to use. You can accidentally capture your own feet and hands in the photo.

[skankin_giant]

Following this thread with interest! Always fancied a fisheye.
Clifton cameras (UK) will do the 10-17mm with 0% interest for 12 months....

Cheers Steve

[harmonica2]

I suggest saving up for the DA 10-17. I've owned mine for a few years and I have been consistently blown away by the image quality. Also, the lens allows for close focusing, which makes for fun portraits.
I've never used the Bower, but images taken with that lens (and its derivatives) that I have seen posted online don't render colors or contrast nearly as well as the Pentax.
(Owners of the Bower, feel free to try to prove me wrong. I prefer primes, and auto-focus isn't necessary when you are shooting that wide, so I would gladly trade down if I could be convinced that the image quality of the Bower is better than I currently believe.)

[DSims]

The DA10-17 is very versatile because of the zoom, and the colors and overall look of the images is close to the DA15 (one of the best in this regard).

So, no one told you owning a DSLR was going to be expensive?

[reeftool]

That is pretty much impossible. Very few lenses go for under 100, and they will either be 50mm (because that is a very popular focal length and not too hard to fabricate) or used/old/obsolete.
Look for the Zenitar 16mm, that is the cheapest fisheye out there, but its also not very sharp and may need some adjusting at home once you get it (there is a website that tells you what to adjust and how).
Another cheap one is the Peleng 8mm, made in Belarus. Can't really vouch for its quality either. Look at the Lens reviews and Sample photos sections on these forums.
The next cheapest fisheye is probably the Samyang 8mm. It is also sold under the following names: Rokinon, Pro Optic, Walimex, Bower, Falcon,.. and possibly others. This lens is usually reviewed as "surprisingly good" and "great IQ at that cost", probably a better idea than the Soviet alternatives.
But why do you need a fisheye? Fisheyes have very specific uses and are pretty hard to use. You can accidentally capture your own feet and hands in the photo.

Why? I think that most of us who own and use these lenses have a personal liking for the effects they produce. Some people hate it. I bought my DA 10-17 from a forum member who bought it because it was considerably cheaper than the DA 12-24 and he planned on using software to "de-fish" his shots. It didn't work and I picked up what I consider a great lens for a bargain. The distortion is always a little evident although sometimes with proper framing or cropping, it's hard to see. It is a somewhat limited use lens which is why I think the OP doesn't want to spend a lot. Best choice is to look for a deal on a used one.

[Kozlok]

Lenses are like women: the pretty and young ones are expensive, and the cheap ones are either old or ugly, but every once in awhile, if things go just wrong, an ugly one turn out to be expensive.

The pretty young inexpensive one lives at the end of a rainbow, rides a unicorn and married a leprechaun.

[stevebrot]

the Zenitar 16mm, that is the cheapest fisheye out there, but its also not very sharp

Not very sharp? I have evidence to the contrary (LINK). The big problem with fisheyes and most other ultra-wides is that they are difficult to focus due to short focus throws and everything being "teeny" in the viewfinder. An aftermarket screen with split image or microprism is pretty much essential.

But why do you need a fisheye? Fisheyes have very specific uses and are pretty hard to use.

Yes, I have found my feet in the frame, but the Zenitar has turned out to be a fairly versatile optic. I don't use it for portraits though...no...no...no...


Steve

[Na Horuk]

Not very sharp? I have evidence to the contrary (LINK). The big problem with fisheyes and most other ultra-wides is that they are difficult to focus due to short focus throws and everything being "teeny" in the viewfinder. An aftermarket screen with split image or microprism is pretty much essential.

Those photos certainly are great, I'm just reflecting some posts I read on the forum in the past, that under f5.6 the lens is very soft. Btw, the Zenitar allows the use of filters, right? Thats pretty good many other fisheyes don't allow that

Oh, and my earlier post about fisheyes being specialty lenses is because I have a 14mm Samyang and I'm needing quite some time to adjust. When I was researching ultra wide angles, practically no posts said how hard it is to use these lenses.

[tcbubbleleo]

I suggest saving up for the DA 10-17. I've owned mine for a few years and I have been consistently blown away by the image quality. Also, the lens allows for close focusing, which makes for fun portraits.
I've never used the Bower, but images taken with that lens (and its derivatives) that I have seen posted online don't render colors or contrast nearly as well as the Pentax.
(Owners of the Bower, feel free to try to prove me wrong. I prefer primes, and auto-focus isn't necessary when you are shooting that wide, so I would gladly trade down if I could be convinced that the image quality of the Bower is better than I currently believe.)

I loved the DA10-17, although I am not really a fisheye user, I tend to miss it from time to time, buy one, then realized I don't use it as much, then sell it.........miss it again....buy again

I agree the DA has more brilliant color and contrast, however just like any 3rd party lens, mostly anyway, I have owned the Korean 14mm too, Tamron lens, but not Sigma, color not as saturated, but not bad.

[tcbubbleleo]

Lenses are like women: the pretty and young ones are expensive, and the cheap ones are either old or ugly, but every once in awhile, if things go just wrong, an ugly one turn out to be expensive.

The pretty young inexpensive one lives at the end of a rainbow, rides a unicorn and married a leprechaun.

inexpensive/old/stunning is Tak50/1.4, she had drank the Fountain of Youth, one of the sharpest 50/1.4 ever