Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-14-2008, 11:49 AM   #1
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Potsdam, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30
Pentax 10-17 or Sigma 10-20?

Some people say the Sigma one has higher QC, while I saw some nice pictures taken by Pentax.
Could anyone here tell something about these two lens? Which one is better and worthy of choosing?

03-14-2008, 11:52 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
you cannot compare these lenses, period.

one is a fish eye the other is rectilinear, they produce drastically different images esp when used at their widest.


it would be like comparing a snow board to a ski when your goal is to get down the hill.



here is a shot used with a rectalinear wide angle lens (not my own work, some dude from todays toronto star article)



see how the sides/corners are stretched with relationship to some point in the center, (also balancing the cameras center point with relationship to the floor creates for very drastic effects)

compared to a fish eye:



as you can see there is no 'stretching', only concave distortion,

also a fisheys effects are felt greater when you move closer

Last edited by Gooshin; 03-14-2008 at 12:07 PM.
03-14-2008, 12:34 PM   #3
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi jianshi

Re your question:

QuoteQuote:
Which one is better
This is a difficult one ! Is an apple better than a banana ? Well, as you're not comparing like-with-like, it really boils down to personal likes and preferences. Due to the rectilinear design of the Sigma 10-20mm, I find this variable zoom-lens utterly brilliant for landscape & interior architectural photography, but the Pentax fish-eye opens up different opportunities of a more dramatic nature where creativity is concerned. The expression 'horses for courses' springs to mind, so my best advice would if possible be to visit a photographic store that carries both lenses, in order that you can see what each one can do for you.

Best regards
Richard
03-14-2008, 01:01 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: North Wales, UK
Posts: 645
As mentioned you would be better of comparing the sigma 10-20 against the Pentax 12-24. Anyway I've done quite a bit of research on these 2 & will be buying the Sigma very soon

simon

03-14-2008, 01:12 PM   #5
hll
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: new york
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 297
hi,
maybe jianshi does not know the difference.
i know the difference quiet well but i still don't know which one to buy!!
03-14-2008, 01:21 PM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,915
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote


that's an interesting pic of dundas station, i'd be worried if the stations were actually that dark in real life
03-14-2008, 06:51 PM   #7
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,852
QuoteQuote:
you cannot compare these lenses, period.
Yes, you can. "Comparing" means looking at similarities and differences. The fact that they produce different images is part of the comparison.

It is the same as comparing vinyl and CDs.
03-15-2008, 10:10 AM   #8
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,139
I want both of them. Right now I can't afford either. The price for both is the same as a tank of fuel oil. Do I heat the house for the rest of the winter or buy lenses? Running this by my wife won't help.

03-15-2008, 01:29 PM   #9
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Posts: 1,067
Hi reeftool

Re your present conundrum:

QuoteQuote:
I want both of them. Right now I can't afford either. The price for both is the same as a tank of fuel oil. Do I heat the house for the rest of the winter or buy lenses?
The answer to that one is fairly simple. If I were you, I'd temporarily mortgage the wife until summer arrives and put the proceeds towards sufficient fuel oil & a Sigma 10-20mm. I hear on the grapevine that she's an understanding kind of woman, so I wouldn't worry yourself about the eventual consequences.......always remember, life's like walking a tightrope !

Best regards
Richard (Ex Marriage Guidance Expert....lol !)
03-16-2008, 07:37 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by SpecialK Quote
Yes, you can. "Comparing" means looking at similarities and differences. The fact that they produce different images is part of the comparison.

It is the same as comparing vinyl and CDs.
you missunderstand, when one compares something the assumption is that the end result is similar but the quality difference

while the end result is identical for both lenses, "a picture", the nature of the pictures are very different, and it would be silly to compare them.
03-16-2008, 01:04 PM   #11
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14
As people have pointed out, these lenses are not exactly comparable. I just had the same rectilinear vs. fish-eye comparison and for me the 10-17mm fisheye won. One benefit is that it's good for making 360x360 degrees panoramas with PTGui easily with just a few shots. I find it quite enjoyable.
Here's some fisheye shots that I took recently.

Picasa Web Albums - Janne - Fish Factory ...

But like I said, they are not comparable and you should decide what you use it for.
03-16-2008, 02:14 PM   #12
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Confused Quote
Hi reeftool

Re your present conundrum:



The answer to that one is fairly simple. If I were you, I'd temporarily mortgage the wife until summer arrives and put the proceeds towards sufficient fuel oil & a Sigma 10-20mm. I hear on the grapevine that she's an understanding kind of woman, so I wouldn't worry yourself about the eventual consequences.......always remember, life's like walking a tightrope !

Best regards
Richard (Ex Marriage Guidance Expert....lol !)
Well, we finished doing the taxes this weekend and we're getting back a pretty good chunk of change so I might be able to pull it off (buying a lens or 2, lol). Thanks for the advice though.
03-24-2008, 06:46 PM   #13
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Potsdam, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30
Original Poster
Thanks for all your replies! I'm sorry I didn't check this thread these days.
Now I am aware of these two lens, Pentax fisheye has the circular distortion while Sigma is a super wide angle lens. But I still have some questions: Does the fisheye effect exist through all the zoom range (from 10 to 17mm)? If at the long end it can be used as a normal rectalinear lens, that's great! If Sigma works as a normal ultra wide zoom, probably I'll choose Pentax 12-24, it is said to be a very decent landscape and indoor lens.
Sorry, there are no local shops around my town, so I have to ask online.
03-25-2008, 01:51 AM   #14
hll
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: new york
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 297
you can find some samples on photozone.de, lens review...
i don't have the lens, but at 17mm it has less distortion, closer to a linear lens... but still it is a fish eye...
i think the only one who can decide is you...
Pentax SMC DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 ED[IF] Fisheye - Review / Test Report
Pentax SMC DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 ED[IF] Fisheye - Review / Test Report
03-25-2008, 03:45 AM   #15
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sault Ste Marie, Ont, Canada.
Posts: 563
I have the fisheye, and not the Sigma.

One thing I have noticed, you can control the amount of distortion dependent on where you place the horizon line. If you place it dead center, the effect is greatly diminished. You will always get a little barrel curve on vertical objects on the side of your composition. Place that horizon line up or down however and it will curve to extremes.

In other words, if you know what your doing with the lens, you can control the distortion somewhat.

Yes, there is a little distortion at 17mm.

Yes, the fisheye will give you a wider field of view at 11mm then the Sigma will at 11mm.

I really like the fisheye. It works great for close-up work also. Likewise, you can defish a photo taken with a fisheye using software, but be warned, you do lose edge quality somewhat.

As to which is best for you....they are both very different lenses. I chose the fisheye because I already had a 16-45 Pentax. I felt that if I wanted wider, I would go extreme. At 11mm, the fisheye will give you a true 180 degrees field of view.
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, pentax lens, sigma, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
is a 18-200mm sigma a good swap for pentax 18-55mm and sigma 70-300mm? tomell Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 06-18-2010 09:36 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax AF-540FGZ Flash, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6, Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 davebest Sold Items 12 06-25-2009 02:48 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Lens Blowout; 50mm 1.4, Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 400mm, etc. nufenstein Sold Items 13 03-30-2009 12:00 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 PM. | 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