Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-25-2014, 04:15 PM   #1
Veteran Member
peterjcb's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weddington, NC
Posts: 468
DA10-17...walk around street lens

Has anyone used the DA10-17 as a walk-around street lens occasionally?
Normally I would take my DA15 but I was thinking that I'd have the fisheye and super-wide options with the fisheye.

06-25-2014, 04:24 PM   #2
Veteran Member
EarlVonTapia's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,207
QuoteOriginally posted by peterjcb Quote
Has anyone used the DA10-17 as a walk-around street lens occasionally?
Normally I would take my DA15 but I was thinking that I'd have the fisheye and super-wide options with the fisheye.
I have

It's great for capturing wide street scenes. I like using it for intersections. You have to be careful about using it to take pictures of buildings, unless you are purposely going for that effect.

At 17mm, corrected with software such as Lightroom, it's field of view is very similar to a Sigma 10-20mm @ 10mm, so it can function as a regular ultra-wide. Picture quality is about equal.

I've owned a Sigma 10-20mm and 2x of the DA 10-17mm FEs. In my opinion the DA 10-17mm is a way better lens than any of the Sigma 10-20mm lenses. It is smaller and lighter, cheaper by a bit, and much more versatile. Image quality is the same. The bonus is that you get the ability to use it as a regular fisheye.

One drawback is you can't use filters with the DA 10-17.
06-25-2014, 04:43 PM   #3
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,229
QuoteOriginally posted by EarlVonTapia Quote
I've owned a Sigma 10-20mm and 2x of the DA 10-17mm FEs. In my opinion the DA 10-17mm is a way better lens than any of the Sigma 10-20mm lenses. It is smaller and lighter, cheaper by a bit, and much more versatile. Image quality is the same. The bonus is that you get the ability to use it as a regular fisheye.
The DA10-17 is a good lens - I have one - but that's a pretty sad statement about the quality of the Sigmas, isn't it? I mean, considering the fact that a reasonable amount of correction still needs to be applied at 17mm on the DA10-17.


I never bought the Sigma because it never impressed me. But I didn't realize the DA10-17 would actually equal it for non-FE work - interesting!

Last edited by DSims; 06-25-2014 at 04:48 PM.
06-25-2014, 04:43 PM   #4
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,504
Yes. It works well in circumstances where you have to shoot close to your subjects and still get a complete building or a vehicle from close quarters. Of course, you always have to consider the distortion but that can be worked around with careful framing.
This is a DA 10-17 shot of the ferris wheel on the Myrtle Beach boardwalk. (at 13mm)


This shot gets in almost a whole block. It doesn't look "fishy" but you can see the distortion as the buildings appear to curve. (at 17mm)


This looks almost normal although you can see the curve of the lamps in the foreground edges. Also at 17mm.


I never try to "de-fish" any of my shots. If I want rectilinear, I use my DA 15. When I'm shooting wide, I will usually carry both lenses.

06-25-2014, 05:20 PM   #5
Veteran Member
peterjcb's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weddington, NC
Posts: 468
Original Poster
nice work with the 10-17 reeftool !
Yes, the 10-17 is a relatively small lens which is a nice plus expecially when compared to the DA12-24 which I tend to leave home a lot because it's so big with the front hood...but the 12-24 is very sharp.
06-25-2014, 05:25 PM   #6
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
When I had it, yes I have I sorely miss the ability to zoom to 17mm. I use a 15mm now (with FF so it's like it's the DA stuck at 10mm). Nowhere as versatile though.
06-25-2014, 06:10 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,705
While the 10-17 has tempted me a few times, instead I went all-small with the SMC 17mm fish-eye and like it a lot. It does bend at the edges but on aps-c it's not a major effect unless you're shooting up close to straight lines. I don't do 'street' per se but it would make a fun walkaround lens in many cases.

06-25-2014, 07:10 PM   #8
Veteran Member
peterjcb's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weddington, NC
Posts: 468
Original Poster
...took the fisheye on my bike ride tonight and tested shooting at 15mm....
I tried to keep the main center lines straight, maybe it's not the best scene to shoot ( at an oval track ) but it did quite well at 15mm.
There's not much you can do about the horizon. I may try and straighten it out in DxO or Photoshop and see how it comes out.


06-25-2014, 09:25 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,412
I have had the lens for 7+ years now. The day after I received it, I took it to an animal show my wife was doing and used it as the walk around lens all day. I learned a ton about the lens, and even more that evening when I had a look at the images. Its a very versatile lens. Now, having said that - its also a specialty lens, that can be over used. You really need to understand where you are going to put the bend. A slight tip up or down can and will put a very pronounced bend in the picture. You, the photographer control that.

As much as I like the lens, using it as the sole walk around lens all day, every day - especially in the city, with a lot of straight lines and squares/rectangles - could get a might trying on the eyes.

06-25-2014, 11:01 PM   #10
Pentaxian
todd's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Basement
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,218
I've only had the lens a few months and have used it as a walk around especially when I first got it, but now find that it's not always on my camera but I always want it with me for whenever I see a subject or whatever that calls for it or seems to have potential...
06-26-2014, 12:39 AM   #11
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,544
In my experience sharpness and fringing of the DA10-17 leave a lot to be desired. Even the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm.
06-26-2014, 03:51 AM   #12
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
In my experience sharpness and fringing of the DA10-17 leave a lot to be desired. Even the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm.
My experience with it has been that, while that it might not be that sharp in absolute terms, the image bites and jumps out, do you call that microcontrast? That's just my experience though.

And yeah fringing can be an issue at times...
06-27-2014, 01:46 AM   #13
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,229
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
My experience with it has been that, while that it might not be that sharp in absolute terms, the image bites and jumps out, do you call that microcontrast? That's just my experience though.
This seems to be a common experience. It's certainly mine! I just don't think to criticize the sharpness of the images, because they look good! Even more so if you're anywhere near the wider FE end - someone's going to notice the FE effect, color, and other characteristics of the image more. If an image impresses you in the first place you generally don't think to look around and determine whether it's really that sharp or not.


IMO the 10-17 is one of the great reasons to want to shoot a cropped sensor Pentax (or Nikon) camera. But why not get the built-in SR of the Pentax?

I suppose the Canon 8-15 FE is the only competition, but it costs just a little bit more. Canon 8-15 shooters often think they've found a unique gem (and they're probably right - at least about the gem part) but they sometimes may not realize that if they're on an APS-C body the Tokina/Pentax 10-17 does much the same thing, for much less. I think sometimes they don't even know the Tokina exists!

Last edited by DSims; 06-27-2014 at 01:57 AM.
06-27-2014, 05:13 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
I think actually the Canon is a totally different lens. I don't see myself using it anywhere in between 8 and 15 mm, just at the two extremes, since it's really designed as a 'two lens in one' for full frame. If I'm a crop user I'd just use the 10_17
06-27-2014, 12:27 PM   #15
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,504
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
My experience with it has been that, while that it might not be that sharp in absolute terms, the image bites and jumps out, do you call that microcontrast? That's just my experience though.

And yeah fringing can be an issue at times...
It's not perfect but does have it's share of Pentax Pixie Dust. It is a pretty sharp lens IMO. The PF goes away when stopped down. This is a love it or hate it lens. Most of the people who hate it are using it wrong and trying to use PP to correct curvature of field and distortion. It doesn't work 99% of the time. It's a totally different issue than correcting barrel and pincushion distortion in a rectilinear lens. This lens was made to be distorted.

The question comes up all the time about buying the 10-17 as a substitute for the DA 12-24 or DA 15. It isn't and if the fisheye distortion isn't something you like and enjoy getting creative with, please don't buy this lens!
This is the kind of stuff I really like to do with this lens.


Avalanche Lake in the Adirondacks. I tried this shot with the DA 15 and it wasn't possible. The sheer 2000 ft cliffs didn't even get into the frame. The flare was brutal (expected) and that's the reason for the B&W, some stuff I just couldn't correct in PP although someone with better skills possibly could. A DA 15 sunburst would have looked much better.


A tool show. They wanted a shot from the roof of a trailer. The DA 10-17 got the whole show.
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!
fisheye, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, street
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The kit lens is not a good walk-around lens. ChristianRock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 58 02-15-2014 10:30 AM
Which lens as best general walk around zoom lens woodywesty Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 09-23-2013 08:02 AM
Advice: walk around zoom (17-70 or 18-135?) and a prime cletus1jr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 05-27-2013 01:28 PM
Walk around lens upgrade advice svensimon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 08-30-2012 03:08 AM
Walk-Around/Travel Zoom: Pentax 18-135 vs. Sigma 17-50 ahw Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 10-10-2011 06:55 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 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