I'm cheating on my fisheye lens!

jmdeegan · 05-06-2008, 07:44 AM

So, the 10-17 was basically the first lens I bought, after the kit 18-55. I loved this lens, no denying that. I used it a lot when on vacation in December.

I loaned it to a friend in February, and decided to get the 10-20 Sigma in the interim to fill the gap (silly me, I didn't think I'd miss the fisheye that much...).

Well. I got the fisheye back almost a month ago, and it hasn't been used since! I gotta say, I really love the sigma. Nothing against the fisheye, but i've got a serious lens-crush on the 10-20, like I never expected.

Anyone else have both 10-17 and the 10-20, and find themselves almost exclusively shooting the sigma option?
And note, I really don't think its the fisheye effect for me. i like it/don't mind it. Just lot the sigma I guess

ricosuave · 05-06-2008, 11:03 AM

exactly what is it about the sigma that you prefer?
does it render color better, produce more pleasing pictures, or less prone to flare?

kurious0 · 05-06-2008, 11:38 AM

I'd like to know too. I'm currently in the market for a fisheye-wide lens and I'd like to hear your opinions on why you like the sigma better

alinla · 05-06-2008, 12:36 PM

Yes, I had both. Sold the 10-17 after 9 months or so.

For me, it was about making life easier. Whenever I'd go out shooting I stood at home paralyzed trying to figure out if I wanted a fisheye or rectilinear wide angle only to regret picking one and not the other when I was out. So I sold the 10-17 as many of my best work was done with the 10-20.

However, I've kinda yearned to have the 10-17 back. Its such a fun lens to use.

jmdeegan · 05-06-2008, 04:00 PM

that is kinda it-if I had two bodies, having each one on a body of its own and being able to swap quickly might be nice.

otherwise, its kind of a wash for me. i think they are both very good lenses. i think i just got used to being without the fisheye, i havent felt the urge to put it back on the camera.

don't get me wrong, i doubt highly that I would sell either one. I think I just didn't expect to dig the sigma as much as I have. and just my opinion, you couldnt go wrong with either/both. the key is, if you must have the rectilinear, then get it. yes, i know some software removes the fisheye effect, but why buy it if you don't want the effect

TourDeForce · 05-06-2008, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by jmdeegan

... some software removes the fisheye effect, but why buy it if you don't want the effect

There's the key right there. They're two lenses designed for two very different applications/effects.

Frankly, I've had my eye on the Sigma. Just can't pull the trigger on that purchase 'till after I've paid for both my daughters tuitions and one wedding... Ungh, life is suckin' for me right now. Maybe by the time this is all taken care of, I'll be due for a K300 to go with it.

Nico · 05-07-2008, 10:48 PM

I sold my Nikon D70s and got the K200d so that I can use the 17-28 fisheye that I had. You still get the fisheye look at 17mm (not as severe as with 10-17mm). At 28mm it looks almost normal. To me it is just right for full time use.

It is not as wide but if you want little bit of fisheye look when you want it, try the lens. I had excellent results with K200d.

HermanLee · 05-08-2008, 12:16 AM

Same here w/Nico comment on F 17-28 Fisheye.
I have this lens and it's really fun to use not to mention how sharp it is even wide open.
At 28mm the degree of view is more like 24mm to me. For sure it's wider than just a 28mm.
Last time I tried this lens on 35mm film camera and WOW...it almost cover my whole bedroom

sort of.
Can't wait to try it when Pentax launched their FF DSLR...just a hope.

I think ultra wide angle and fisheye has different use.
Ultrawideangle is good for architecture work
while the Fisheye is good for creative work.

reeftool · 05-08-2008, 06:43 AM

I would like to have both myself. I also have a daughter in college so money is tight. I will probably get one of them soon and i'm leaning towards the fisheye. I've seen it under $400 on a few sites recently.

beaumont · 05-08-2008, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by TourDeForce

There's the key right there. They're two lenses designed for two very different applications/effects.

Frankly, I've had my eye on the Sigma. Just can't pull the trigger on that purchase 'till after I've paid for both my daughters tuitions and one wedding... Ungh, life is suckin' for me right now. Maybe by the time this is all taken care of, I'll be due for a K300 to go with it.

Just one chubby guys opinion but... the amount of money that you'll save by not hiring a photographer for the wedding should cover the cost of a number of lenses.

MrA · 05-08-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by HermanLee

I think ultra wide angle and fisheye has different use.
Ultrawideangle is good for architecture work
while the Fisheye is good for creative work.

I think in a few months this will be my #1 dilemma. Architecture student into creative photography. Which to choose.

ricosuave · 05-08-2008, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by beaumont

Just one chubby guys opinion but... the amount of money that you'll save by not hiring a photographer for the wedding should cover the cost of a number of lenses.

and in some cases, a new body too.

05-07-2008, 10:48 PM	#7
Nico Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Irvine, So. Cal Posts: 127	pentax 17-28 fisheye I sold my Nikon D70s and got the K200d so that I can use the 17-28 fisheye that I had. You still get the fisheye look at 17mm (not as severe as with 10-17mm). At 28mm it looks almost normal. To me it is just right for full time use. It is not as wide but if you want little bit of fisheye look when you want it, try the lens. I had excellent results with K200d.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should I be cheating?	Ira	Site Suggestions and Help	18	07-14-2010 04:45 PM
DPReview is cheating?	kyrios	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	01-02-2008 01:45 PM
I have been cheating on you ;)	vievetrick	General Talk	3	12-30-2007 03:21 PM
K100D, Cheating in manual mode	Ed in GA	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	04-07-2007 12:05 PM
I feel like using Raw is like cheating	slip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	64	02-02-2007 03:28 PM

05-06-2008, 07:44 AM	#1
jmdeegan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: nyc Photos: Gallery Posts: 564	I'm cheating on my fisheye lens! So, the 10-17 was basically the first lens I bought, after the kit 18-55. I loved this lens, no denying that. I used it a lot when on vacation in December. I loaned it to a friend in February, and decided to get the 10-20 Sigma in the interim to fill the gap (silly me, I didn't think I'd miss the fisheye that much...). Well. I got the fisheye back almost a month ago, and it hasn't been used since! I gotta say, I really love the sigma. Nothing against the fisheye, but i've got a serious lens-crush on the 10-20, like I never expected. Anyone else have both 10-17 and the 10-20, and find themselves almost exclusively shooting the sigma option? And note, I really don't think its the fisheye effect for me. i like it/don't mind it. Just lot the sigma I guess

05-06-2008, 11:03 AM	#2
ricosuave Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 298	exactly what is it about the sigma that you prefer? does it render color better, produce more pleasing pictures, or less prone to flare?

05-06-2008, 11:38 AM	#3
kurious0 New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 6	I'd like to know too. I'm currently in the market for a fisheye-wide lens and I'd like to hear your opinions on why you like the sigma better

05-06-2008, 12:36 PM	#4
alinla Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 193	Yes, I had both. Sold the 10-17 after 9 months or so. For me, it was about making life easier. Whenever I'd go out shooting I stood at home paralyzed trying to figure out if I wanted a fisheye or rectilinear wide angle only to regret picking one and not the other when I was out. So I sold the 10-17 as many of my best work was done with the 10-20. However, I've kinda yearned to have the 10-17 back. Its such a fun lens to use.

05-06-2008, 04:00 PM	#5
jmdeegan Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: nyc Photos: Gallery Posts: 564 Original Poster	that is kinda it-if I had two bodies, having each one on a body of its own and being able to swap quickly might be nice. otherwise, its kind of a wash for me. i think they are both very good lenses. i think i just got used to being without the fisheye, i havent felt the urge to put it back on the camera. don't get me wrong, i doubt highly that I would sell either one. I think I just didn't expect to dig the sigma as much as I have. and just my opinion, you couldnt go wrong with either/both. the key is, if you must have the rectilinear, then get it. yes, i know some software removes the fisheye effect, but why buy it if you don't want the effect

05-06-2008, 05:15 PM	#6
TourDeForce Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 514	Originally posted by jmdeegan ... some software removes the fisheye effect, but why buy it if you don't want the effect There's the key right there. They're two lenses designed for two very different applications/effects. Frankly, I've had my eye on the Sigma. Just can't pull the trigger on that purchase 'till after I've paid for both my daughters tuitions and one wedding... Ungh, life is suckin' for me right now. Maybe by the time this is all taken care of, I'll be due for a K300 to go with it.

05-08-2008, 12:16 AM	#8
HermanLee Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Southern California, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 729	Same here w/Nico comment on F 17-28 Fisheye. I have this lens and it's really fun to use not to mention how sharp it is even wide open. At 28mm the degree of view is more like 24mm to me. For sure it's wider than just a 28mm. Last time I tried this lens on 35mm film camera and WOW...it almost cover my whole bedroom sort of. Can't wait to try it when Pentax launched their FF DSLR...just a hope. I think ultra wide angle and fisheye has different use. Ultrawideangle is good for architecture work while the Fisheye is good for creative work.

05-08-2008, 06:43 AM	#9
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	I would like to have both myself. I also have a daughter in college so money is tight. I will probably get one of them soon and i'm leaning towards the fisheye. I've seen it under $400 on a few sites recently.

05-08-2008, 12:58 PM	#10
beaumont Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 505	Originally posted by TourDeForce There's the key right there. They're two lenses designed for two very different applications/effects. Frankly, I've had my eye on the Sigma. Just can't pull the trigger on that purchase 'till after I've paid for both my daughters tuitions and one wedding... Ungh, life is suckin' for me right now. Maybe by the time this is all taken care of, I'll be due for a K300 to go with it. Just one chubby guys opinion but... the amount of money that you'll save by not hiring a photographer for the wedding should cover the cost of a number of lenses.

05-08-2008, 02:44 PM	#11
MrA Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: England UK Posts: 211	Originally posted by HermanLee I think ultra wide angle and fisheye has different use. Ultrawideangle is good for architecture work while the Fisheye is good for creative work. I think in a few months this will be my #1 dilemma. Architecture student into creative photography. Which to choose.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-08-2008, 03:48 PM	#12
ricosuave Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 298	Originally posted by beaumont Just one chubby guys opinion but... the amount of money that you'll save by not hiring a photographer for the wedding should cover the cost of a number of lenses. and in some cases, a new body too.