DA10-17...walk around street lens

peterjcb · 06-25-2014, 04:15 PM

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.

EarlVonTapia · 06-25-2014, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by peterjcb

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.

DSims · 06-25-2014, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by EarlVonTapia

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!

reeftool · 06-25-2014, 04:43 PM

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.

peterjcb · 06-25-2014, 05:20 PM

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.

Andi Lo · 06-25-2014, 05:25 PM

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.

jimr-pdx · 06-25-2014, 06:10 PM

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.

peterjcb · 06-25-2014, 07:10 PM

...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.

**interested_observer** · 06-25-2014, 09:25 PM

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.

**todd** · 06-25-2014, 11:01 PM

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...

kh1234567890 · 06-26-2014, 12:39 AM

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.

Andi Lo · 06-26-2014, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

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...

DSims · 06-27-2014, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

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!

Andi Lo · 06-27-2014, 05:13 AM

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

reeftool · 06-27-2014, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Andi Lo

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.

06-25-2014, 04:15 PM	#1
peterjcb Veteran Member 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, 04:43 PM	#3
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by EarlVonTapia 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.

06-27-2014, 01:46 AM	#13
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by Andi Lo 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.

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

06-25-2014, 04:24 PM	#2
EarlVonTapia Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Vancouver Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,207	Originally posted by peterjcb 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	#4
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	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
peterjcb Veteran Member 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
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	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
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	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
peterjcb Veteran Member 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
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	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
todd Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,799	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
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	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
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	Originally posted by kh1234567890 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, 05:13 AM	#14
Andi Lo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 2,924	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
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	Originally posted by Andi Lo 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.