[Nicolas06]

OK, I'll ask. How is 10-17mm wider than 8-16mm?

The 10-17 is a fisheye zoom at 10mm it has 180° angle of view and at 17mm it has 100° angle of view.

The sigma 8-16 is 117° at 8mm and 75° at 16mm.

The 10-17 is also smaller/lighter but the key point is that is make fisheye pictures, the picture are distorted, even if the effect is quite moderate at 17mm

To be noted that the 8-16 pictures are not that natural looking neither at 8mm. the distorsion is different but quite heavy/present.

Here a few samples taken from flickr after a quick search (not by me):

10mm


10mm


10mm


10mm


17mm

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-18-2016 at 11:32 PM.

[BrianR]

OK, I'll ask. How is 10-17mm wider than 8-16mm?

Comparison photos at both ends of their zoom range are here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/235102-uwa-...omparison.html

[Des]

This has been educational.

[Rondec]

I saw one recently on Gumtree Australia for $A400 (about $US275). It sold very quickly.

Anyway from what @Digitalis says, it might be a risky lens to buy second hand.


OK, I'll ask. How is 10-17mm wider than 8-16mm?

It is what Nicolas says. The angle of view is wider with the fisheye projection than with the rectilinear projection. The fisheye is really, really wide -- you have to be careful not to get your feet into the photo.

My experience with most really wide angle rectilinear lenses is that they are good sized -- I guess because they have to have corrective elements to straighten lines that would otherwise curve on the edges of the photo.

Just on a more personal note, I don't like super wide angles -- particularly not for architecture. Even if they have little distortion, there is a perspective distortion that comes with them that makes buildings look odd -- and makes things like huge mountains in the distance look pretty insignificant.

[Digitalis]

The angle of view is wider with the fisheye projection than with the rectilinear projection.

That is the difference in a nutshell.

---------- Post added 01-19-16 at 10:20 PM ----------

I don't like super wide angles -- particularly not for architecture. Even if they have little distortion, there is a perspective distortion that comes with them that makes buildings look odd -- and makes things like huge mountains in the distance look pretty insignificant.

I can understand this - Personally I'm not that good with wide angles my photographic comfort zone is 35~90mm range.


But as I have mentioned, there are images that are only possible with wide lenses, and the distortion from the Sigma 8-16mm is close to negligible in the middle of its zoom range.


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 11mm f/11 ISO 320

[Rondec]

That is the difference in a nutshell.

---------- Post added 01-19-16 at 10:20 PM ----------



I can understand this - Personally I'm not that good with wide angles my photographic comfort zone is 35~90mm range.


But as I have mentioned, there are images that are only possible with wide lenses, and the distortion from the Sigma 8-16mm is close to negligible in the middle of its zoom range.


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 @ 11mm f/11 ISO 320

Of course. And great shot. I just sort of get annoyed when people assume that landscape photography has to be in the wide to super-wide angle range. There are at least as many great landscape photos taken with longer focal lengths. When you shoot with really wide angles, it is either because you need to fit everything in and you don't have the option to stitch (like your lightning photo) or, because you want to emphasize foreground elements (this seems to be the most common thing I see).

(this shot with the DA *55)

[Digitalis]

I just sort of get annoyed when people assume that landscape photography has to be in the wide to super-wide angle range. There are at least as many great landscape photos taken with longer focal lengths.

I agree, some people seem to think that landscapes require wide angle lenses 20mm and under are every bit as annoying as the people who think landscapes cannot be shot in portrait orientation. I personally have used lenses well over 600mm for landscape images. Many very successful landscape images have been shot with lenses in the 24~135mm range for decades. Also if you hadn't already noticed - the OP is about the need for a wide-angle lens, not just a lens for landscape photography.


Pentax-K7 - Pentax SMCP-FA*600mm f/4 ED[IF] f/16 ISO 100 1s

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 01-19-2016 at 05:41 AM.

[mgvh]

I've been playing around with UWA (Sigma 10-20) and fisheyes (Rokinon 8mm and DA 10-17). The question I was trying to answer is whether a fisheye could successfully be de-fished to provide a satisfactory rectilinear perspective. Yes, I know, a fisheye is a fisheye, and its primary purpose should be for those 'whimsical' fisheye perspectives. Still, a lens like the DA 10-17 FE is a remarkably small lens compared to the Sigma 10-20, and at 15-17mm it is quite nearly rectilinear and easily de-fished. HERE is the thread with my results.

When it comes to wide angle lenses, this is the conclusion I reached, but perhaps others can confirm whether or not it is true:
An UWA lens can be physically designed (i.e., hardware) to render a rectilinear perspective OR nearly the same thing can be accomplished with a fisheye lens via software in processing.

That is, a rectilinear UWA lens is going to have its own set of compromises and distortions to get things rectilinear. A fisheye doesn't have to deal with those things in the same way. In many instances, defishing and cropping a fisheye shot can provide a more natural perspective than a rectilinear UWA. Again, there will be compromises, but I found that even after cropping, a 12mm shot on the DA 10-17 provided the same angle of view as 10mm on the Sigma 10-20.

[Nicolas06]

It is what Nicolas says. The angle of view is wider with the fisheye projection than with the rectilinear projection. The fisheye is really, really wide -- you have to be careful not to get your feet into the photo.

My experience with most really wide angle rectilinear lenses is that they are good sized -- I guess because they have to have corrective elements to straighten lines that would otherwise curve on the edges of the photo.

Just on a more personal note, I don't like super wide angles -- particularly not for architecture. Even if they have little distortion, there is a perspective distortion that comes with them that makes buildings look odd -- and makes things like huge mountains in the distance look pretty insignificant.

I would say idealy you can find a shooting position that allow you to get the framing you want with most focal length. Not always true but you get the idea.

A bulding shot taken by a tourist might be quite distorted because he didn't have the room to move or maybe even didn't take the time to look for a better spot. The pro will manage to take the shoot from the opposite building... Even if getting the right to be on that opposite building might be a bit complex.

So for me, ideally you shoot with a tele because you want the perspective compression and a WA because you want the perspective distorsion.

We tend to think portraiture => 50-85mm on APSC, Landscape => 8-24mm but like not all landscapes are taken at a WA, not all portraits aren't taken with a moderate tele neither. Many portrait shooters will use a 24mm (APSC) or something like that to give the impression of being in the scene, near the subject and also to have some environment.

[Driline]

I agree, some people seem to think that landscapes require wide angle lenses 20mm and under are every bit as annoying as the people who think landscapes cannot be shot in portrait orientation. I personally have used lenses well over 600mm for landscape images. Many very successful landscape images have been shot with lenses in the 24~135mm range for decades. Also if you hadn't already noticed - the OP is about the need for a wide-angle lens, not just a lens for landscape photography.


Pentax-K7 - Pentax SMCP-FA*600mm f/4 ED[IF] f/16 ISO 100 1s

Ok now you got me thinking my FA 31 would work just as well for a wide angle lens should I need it. I've got a Marumi CPL when paired with this lens just brings colors to life out of this world. Maybe I should just hold off and see how it goes.

[Nicolas06]

Ok now you got me thinking my FA 31 would work just as well for a wide angle lens should I need it. I've got a Marumi CPL when paired with this lens just brings colors to life out of this world. Maybe I should just hold off and see how it goes.

Nah, you really need an UWA to get anything done.

Impossible to get any architecture shoot with a tele

F135



FA77



And landscapes? An UWA or nothing. Also remember you always need to have lot of detail in the shadows. That's a D810 or nothing

F135



FA77




For a walkaround in the city the same, WA and UWA rules

FA77
I


FA77



And of course, never portrait orientation for a landscape. That's nonsense. Ah and yes, never contra light , it ruin any shoot.
DA15 this time.

[waterfall]

Nah, you really need an UWA to get anything done.

Impossible to get any architecture shoot with a tele

F135



FA77



And landscapes? An UWA or nothing. Also remember you always need to have lot of detail in the shadows. That's a D810 or nothing

F135



FA77




For a walkaround in the city the same, WA and UWA rules

FA77
I


FA77



And of course, never portrait orientation for a landscape. That's nonsense. Ah and yes, never contra light , it ruin any shoot.
DA15 this time.

Well done, Nicholas06.

[Sandy Hancock]

To illustrate Nicolas06's point, here are some comparative test shots I made a while ago with the DA15, Sigma 8-16 @ 8mm, and DA10-17 @10mm. All taken on tripod from the same spot exactly, with no cropping or distortion correction.

Apologies for the mundane subject considering all the spectacular images above.



Even when fully de-fished in Lightroom, the 10-17 (on the left) is wider (and more flare resistant!) than the 8-16



I sold the Sigma

[Digitalis]

Even when fully de-fished in Lightroom, the 10-17 (on the left) is wider (and more flare resistant!) than the 8-16

Did you compare them in regards to final image dimensions? De-fishing usually involves throwing a ton of pixels out of the final image.

[Driline]

To illustrate Nicolas06's point, here are some comparative test shots I made a while ago with the DA15, Sigma 8-16 @ 8mm, and DA10-17 @10mm. All taken on tripod from the same spot exactly, with no cropping or distortion correction.

Apologies for the mundane subject considering all the spectacular images above.



Even when fully de-fished in Lightroom, the 10-17 (on the left) is wider (and more flare resistant!) than the 8-16



I sold the Sigma

Sandy's private wine stock? PARTY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA!

Will there be COWTIPPING?