Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-22-2013, 06:03 PM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,022
Note that you can't use a screw in filter on that Samyang. I've got a Bell and Howell rebadging of one ... does the job.

10-22-2013, 06:07 PM   #17
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by paulh Quote
The DA16-45/4 isn't fast at f/4, but has excellent IQ with very nice rendering & sharpness. I see them here on the PF Marketplace going for $200-$250 all the time. It's a discontinued model, but nice used copies turn up frequently.
Thank you. f/4 is a little bad for evening/night photography, I would like to be able to take some nighttime photos as well, not in really dark, nothing that you would use a 1.7 for but in restaurants and streets during the evening hours for example. There are many 2.8s and not all of them are really expensive. The problem is finding some of them, and with others it's the IQ. I actually found a decently priced used prime zoom, tokina 24-40mm. I don't need the zoom but I don't mind it, and it's a 2.8 prime. 24mm doesn't sound too wide for many of you, but from the pictures I've seen I think it would be enough for me. 20mm or 22mm would be better, but I don't mind 24mm. I want a wide-angle because I want to be able to include more in the picture, like when photographing statues or buildings or landscapes or indoors. I don't want the widest angle ever because I want to "photograph Taj Mahal from 20 meters away and get all of it in the picture!"
10-22-2013, 06:14 PM   #18
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JJJPhoto Quote
Hmmm ... I suspect there's some confusion online. There was an older Sigma 14mm f/3.5 "fisheye" but the only Sigma 14mm f/2.8 lens that I'm aware of is the "Aspherical" ... which is not a fisheye. The images I posted in this thread (all taken with the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical) are all essentially straight from the camera. I might have tweaked a RAW slider to two but I didn't apply any lens distortion correction ... which I would have needed to do if it was a fisheye.

KEH has this lens listed for $339, so if you're interested you might want to call them and clarify which lens they're selling.
http://www.keh.com/camera/Pentax-Autofocus-Non-Mfg-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses...99074534N?r=FE

The one on Amazon that I linked to is the one I have (not a fisheye). I purchased mine used on Ebay for $350 with free shipping.

Here is an image of the older Sigma 14mm f/3.5 which is a fisheye with greater distortion (although the distortion on the old Sigma 14mm f/3.5 isn't as bad as the Pentax DA 10-17mm Fisheye):
Sigma 14mm f/3.5 Fisheye - cameraporn.net | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Oh, and regarding the polarizer issue, many people have commented that the Sigma ultra wide angle lenses seem to have an extra coating that is "almost" like a built-in polarizer. I didn't alter the color of the sky in any of these shots:


Thank you for your comments. That lens seems to produce great photos. The sky looks good, but I bet the coating doesn't help with window glare... Well, half the benefit is better than nothing. I would love the lens but I can't find it... The one I found was the older fish eye which you linked to, but it was listed as 15mm. Maybe they made both 14mm and 15mm? i don't know. edit to above: as mint condition 24mm/2.8 is something I can readily get for $260, if you can recommend anything wider that is also 2.8 that would be most helpful. I haven't checked the IQ yet, but it's Tokina... how bad can it be?
10-22-2013, 06:17 PM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tripodquest Quote
mint condition 24mm/2.8... I haven't checked the IQ yet, but it's Tokina... how bad can it be?
edit: I checked... it's... BAD. back to square one.

10-22-2013, 06:36 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 249
Original Poster
Sorry for the many posts, but I just had to write this. I forgot I had the 18-55mm kit lens. no, seriously, I did. I haven't used it at all. I took it out and checked 18mm vs 24mm... I admit, 24mm isn't wide enough. I would be really happy with 18mm. 20mm would probably be okay too. Anything less is not wide enough, but I think 18mm looks good for my needs.
10-22-2013, 07:03 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Yup. I was thinking about selling one of the WR ones I have; I bought two for the WR and really never used them. Really can't beat it for the money.
10-22-2013, 07:19 PM   #22
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Yup. I was thinking about selling one of the WR ones I have; I bought two for the WR and really never used them. Really can't beat it for the money.
the WR is a great feature, but so is a $/20 raincoat for the camera. I've never had a problem with manual lenses in the rain anyway. I will sell my 18-55 too. You're right, it's ridiculously cheap for a WR lens, but it's also a variable aperture zoom lens, which explains the price. I don't think there is any other type of lens that is so useless. It's basically the same as buying a f/5.6 lens. anything shorter than 300mm with a maximum aperture of 5.6 is just wrong. However, it's not totally wasted. Now that I actually remember I have one, I can use the 18mm at f/3.5 if I want a wider shot and don't need a larger aperture. It's better than nothing until I find the perfect 12-18mm lens. Woohoo!
10-22-2013, 08:39 PM   #23
Veteran Member
Louicio's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 432
Have Have you considered the Samyang 16mm f2.0? Add that to your list.

10-22-2013, 09:01 PM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Louicio Quote
Have Have you considered the Samyang 16mm f2.0? Add that to your list.
Thank you. I actually like that lens a lot, based on the pictures I found. Only problem is that it costs twice as much as I wanted to spend. I'm not saying it's expensive, I'm just saying I wanted to keep this month's photography related spending under $2000... I will think about it. Thank you everyone for your suggestions.
10-23-2013, 08:33 AM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Doylestown, PA
Posts: 200
KEH has the Zenitar for under $200. It is a fisheye, but not super bendy on APS-C.

They sometimes turn up the Rokinon/Samyang/et al lenses at reasonable prices too.
10-23-2013, 10:30 AM   #26
arv
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 376
There is Tokina 17mm f3.5.I do not have personal experience with this lens, but users reviews are fine, and there is one currently on Ebay (I do not have any relations with this listing). You can find it's test on Photozone.de as well.

A.
10-23-2013, 01:37 PM   #27
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,457
I am a late-comer to this thread, but may I ask why you want a fast ultra-wide?

If it is to get shallow DOF, I would suggest that while the idea sounds cool, the reality is less so. Ultra-wide angle lenses (fisheye and rectilinear) are notoriously difficult to focus. I use a Katz Eye with my Zenitar and without its focus aids I would be lost. The same issue exists for focus confirm using the AF system.

If, on the other hand, you are wanting to do low-light shooting and need the faster glass for that, see paragraph above and double the emphasis. A better bet is to get a camera with excellent high ISO. But don't wide-angles have super DOF? Yes, they do, but there are still limits. The best you can do with low light is zone focus. There is no way to do otherwise in dim light.


Steve

P.S. In regards to the Zenitar, here is a link to images (both APS-C and 35mm film) from my Flickr account taken with that lens.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=28796087@N02&q=zenitar
10-23-2013, 02:14 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Huh? I find the wider the lens is, the easier it is to focus. Could be because all of my wide angle stuff is really slow, though.
10-23-2013, 04:19 PM   #29
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,457
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Huh? I find the wider the lens is, the easier it is to focus. Could be because all of my wide angle stuff is really slow, though.
The problem is that everything in the view finder is so teeny. I have a K10D, so it may be that the newer bodies with higher magnification viewfinders might be better.


Steve
10-23-2013, 04:54 PM   #30
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 249
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I am a late-comer to this thread, but may I ask why you want a fast ultra-wide?

If it is to get shallow DOF, I would suggest that while the idea sounds cool, the reality is less so. Ultra-wide angle lenses (fisheye and rectilinear) are notoriously difficult to focus. I use a Katz Eye with my Zenitar and without its focus aids I would be lost. The same issue exists for focus confirm using the AF system.

If, on the other hand, you are wanting to do low-light shooting and need the faster glass for that, see paragraph above and double the emphasis. A better bet is to get a camera with excellent high ISO. But don't wide-angles have super DOF? Yes, they do, but there are still limits. The best you can do with low light is zone focus. There is no way to do otherwise in dim light.


Steve

P.S. In regards to the Zenitar, here is a link to images (both APS-C and 35mm film) from my Flickr account taken with that lens.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=28796087@N02&q=zenitar
It's for low light situations I have perfect+ vision. It takes a little getting used to, but it's possible to get perfect manual focus in really low light without seeking and without katzeye. I just managed it with my 50/1.7 wide open (without "seeking"), and to get a clear but a little underexposed result, I had to use iso800 + 0.6" at f/1.7, so I think that qualifies as low light. I just wanted to see if I can focus in that light.). Anything I will be shooting with the wide angle will be in a lot, lot more light than that... Because you just can't take the photos with f/2 or f/2.8 that you can with f/1.2 or f/1.7, and the viewfinder will be a lot darker. I'm getting the k3 so there is focus peaking, if it doesn't work in really low light I'll use my eyes and practice, practice, practice. I believe you can learn every lens to its full potential if you put in the time.
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
The problem is that everything in the view finder is so teeny. I have a K10D, so it may be that the newer bodies with higher magnification viewfinders might be better.


Steve
The "new" viewfinders have a 0.95x magnification. But now that I think about it, things at any distance will seem smaller through a wide angle lens. I wonder if that will make the focusing more difficult? I don't know. I'll just have to try.
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!
angle, colors, contrast, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, post, sharpness, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fast Wide Angle Lens Chook Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 46 05-11-2012 11:49 PM
Extreme wide angle portraits (not fisheye) levelred Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 04-09-2010 11:30 PM
Cheap, fast wide angle PK Petri 2/28mm ovim Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 08-22-2009 10:21 PM
fast wide angle lens Urmas R. Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 04-09-2009 12:41 AM
Fast, wide-angle lens Brucie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 01-08-2008 11:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:10 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