Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2014, 01:19 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 86
QuoteOriginally posted by alamo5000 Quote
What makes a fisheye sort of alluring to me is not the fisheyness of the fisheye, but rather that you can get some awesome wide shots.
You just described an UltraWide angle lens. Not a fisheye.
The Sigma 10-20mm is one of the best ultra wide angles you can get. I greatly prefer it over the 8-16mm.

09-24-2014, 01:23 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 12,275
I have a Pentax 10-17 fisheye. Excellent lens...if you know how to use it. I usually set it at 17mm when doing shots of vintage cars. I find I need to work with it, play with the angles...the horizon line....and when I get it right...boy does this lens add 'pizzaz' to an otherwise humdrum photo opportunity.

I would not...reapeat...would not get a single focal length such as the 10mm Sigma. Nothing wrong with Sigma lens...I have the brand myself.

But a single focal length fish eye...limits you. You get a novelty lens..just capable of one view...serious fisheye.

With the 10-17 Fisheye...everything from uber fisheye @ 10mm...to almost a super wide angle at 17mm.
09-24-2014, 01:26 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
I have several ultra wide lenses.

If you really want to do fisheye on a budget get a samyang 8mm f3.5 fisheye with 180 degree FOV across the APS-C diagonal.

I also have a sigma 10-20 rectalinear zoom, a samyang 14mm/2.8 and a zenitar 160mm fisheye.

The samyang 14 has a significant amount of barrel distortion, but all the lenses are good and applications differ
09-24-2014, 01:41 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,309
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
If you really want to do fisheye on a budget get a samyang 8mm f3.5 fisheye with 180 degree FOV across the APS-C diagonal.
If you really, really want to do fisheye on a budget, mount the 03 lens on a Q.
It focuses all the way down to around 9cm, AFAIK closer than any other fisheye.
And the setup is so tiny, you can squeeze it into all kinds of tight spaces.



09-24-2014, 03:13 PM   #20
Veteran Member
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,653
You can always defish a fisheye. But it can get out of hand

After and before, Samyang 8mm FE :


Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5 II  Photo 
09-24-2014, 04:06 PM - 1 Like   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mattb123's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Colorado High Country
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,867
I have a Rokinon 8/3.5 fisheye (same as Bower, Samyang, and others) that was very inexpensive and a lot of fun.
It's not amazingly sharp but I find it adequately sharp under most circumstances.
As for fishyness, it depends a lot on where you put your horizon. If it's in the center the photos look normal-ish but if you tilt up or down things get very fishy.





09-24-2014, 05:44 PM   #22
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,543
QuoteOriginally posted by Groucho Quote
I don't see anyone mentioning the fact that Lightroom (and presumably ACR) can "correct" the Pentax 10-17mm into looking like a rectilinear UWA.

Fisheyes are very subjective. I love 'em, and by and large, I do *not* like UWA rectilinear shots. (I have absolutely no desire to own one of those 10-20mm, 12mm-24mm, etc UWA lenses.) The nice thing about the Pentax is that if you do like the UWA look, zooming out to 17mm gives you mostly that look with little fishiness, since the more curved edges are mostly cropped.

Unfortunately, the 10-17mm is definitely not perfect. There's a fair amount of purple fringing - which Lightroom can usually take care of pretty well - and the six aperture blades are a real bummer. Give me an odd number, or a minimum of eight if an even number - those six-pointed starbursts just aren't as impressive as the Nikon folks get with their 14-point starbursts from their 7-blade apertures.

My ultimate dream lens is the 10-17mm with some optical tweaking (cut back on the PF if possible - I know it's difficult being so wide), a nine-blade aperture, a little faster (F2.8 please), and weathersealing. That's what I want Pentax to make. The aperture blades would be the #1 thing on that list, weathersealing being #2.

I do still have my old Zenitar 16mm fisheye but really haven't used it since getting the 10-17mm... I just keep it around in case I want to shoot film or if Pentax does a FF and I end up buying one.
I never even try correcting in LR. To me, it just looks bad. When I bought my DA 10-17 several years ago, it was considerably cheaper than any of the other wide angle options available for Pentax. A lot of people bought them with the idea they could "de-fish" in PP. A lot of us soon got good deals on used 10-17's. It's a lens I always have along but I also carry a DA 15 in my bag. The DA 10-17 is a wonderful lens. It's very sharp and can focus very close but it's always a fisheye. It was designed to work that way and de-fishing looks far more distorted than the normal curved view it produces.

I generally use mine stopped down quite a bit so I don't really need a faster version. That would make it considerably larger and heavier too. The PF can be a problem sometimes as can flare. With such a large FOV, the sun always seems to get in there. I agree on the aperture blades. If this lens produced starbursts like the DA 15......well, I might not have bought the 15. When I bought mine back in 07 or 08, Amazon was selling this lens for $360. I got mine used for $300.

09-25-2014, 12:30 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,382
There are plugins for fisheye correction available, but these are not standard. Using the same distortion tools as used for radial symmetric lens distortion based on polynomials would be just playing.
09-26-2014, 10:35 AM   #24
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
There are plugins for fisheye correction available, but these are not standard. Using the same distortion tools as used for radial symmetric lens distortion based on polynomials would be just playing.
PT Lens also works well for defishing, but there is always some loss. Here is the original taken with the Zenitar on the K10D:




And here is the version after PTLens (de-fish only, no perspective correction):




Steve
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!
10mm, 15mm, comments, concern, fisheye, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, shots, sigma, slr lens, steve, view, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do all fisheye lenses have that curved look? Sorver Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 06-20-2014 01:17 PM
Software to un-fisheye the fisheye? ChopperCharles Pentax Q 5 06-08-2013 01:25 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Q, 01,02,06 & fisheye lenses & adapter + ivoire Sold Items 5 06-04-2013 09:15 AM
budget fisheye lenses, is there a difference Lowell Goudge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 02-18-2010 11:53 AM
For Sale - Sold: 4 Lenses: 70-200, Bigma, Macro, Fisheye qdoan Sold Items 12 05-29-2008 10:40 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:36 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