Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-10-2016, 05:03 PM   #16
Site Supporter
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mishawaka IN area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,124
QuoteOriginally posted by transam879 Quote
There is the Sigma 12-24 that no one ever seems to bring up in these discussions about UWA lenses. I like mine better than both of the Sigma 10-20s, plus it's a full frame lens, which works well on the K-1!
Mine is sharp, but I think he wanted wider.

06-10-2016, 07:22 PM   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,700
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I can't find it now but there is a set of shots showing the angle of coverage - the 17mm end of the 10-17 is wider than the 14mm Pentax prime. In fact looking at the field of view it is wider than the 12-24mm @ 12mm. (99 degrees vs. 100 degrees).

I personally love the 12-24. I also love my DA 15 but that lens is soft in the corners due to field curvature.

Can you clarify what need sharp? Edge to edge wide open? at f/8? Center mainly?
The 10-17 Fisheye is about 135 degrees wide (side to side) and 180 degrees (corner to corner), by my measure.Also, here is a thread on comparing UWA and fisheyes....
06-10-2016, 08:20 PM   #18
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
The DA10-17 is *very* wide. The images below are not very interesting, but I think they illustrate the point.

At 10mm and corrected in Lightroom (on the left below) it is still slightly wider than the Sigma 8-16 at 8mm. It also flares less.



At 17mm and corrected in Lightroom (on the left again) it matches the field of view of the DA 15 limited almost exactly, so it's considerably wider than the OP's 18mm.



I had the Sigma for a while, but tired of its size, poor flare resistance, and Sigma-ness. It did give me some very nice images though.

06-10-2016, 09:03 PM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,186
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
The 10-17 Fisheye is about 135 degrees wide (side to side) and 180 degrees (corner to corner), by my measure.Also, here is a thread on comparing UWA and fisheyes....
@10mm right? I was talking at 17mm. Also I was not talking about corrected angle of view but uncorrected view. Sandy's data is more relevant I think.


My data came from the Pentax forums listing for the lens.

06-10-2016, 09:32 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 12,275
My two favourite ultrawides for Pentax are the 12-24 and the 10-17 fisheye, particularly at 17mm.
06-10-2016, 09:36 PM - 1 Like   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
sholtzma's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Salisbury, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,043
And, while we're mentioning items on the Marketplace, I'm selling a 12-24mm there.... (Hint, hint)
06-10-2016, 10:16 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,700
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
@10mm right? I was talking at 17mm. Also I was not talking about corrected angle of view but uncorrected view. Sandy's data is more relevant I think.


My data came from the Pentax forums listing for the lens.
In the first link provided (post #11) it lists the observed field of view for the lens at both 10mm and at 17mm each uncorrected.
  • 10 mm we have a FoV of 135 degrees wide by 85 degrees high
  • 17 mm we have a FoV of 85 degrees wide by 56 degrees high
The information in the Pentax Forums listing just repeats what Pentax lists for the lens - which is corner to corner - not the side to side (at the mid point) and from top to bottom (also at the mid point).

The reason for the post is that if you take a fisheye out in the field and take an image where the camera is level, the field of view is not the stated 180 degrees (10mm) nor the 100 degrees (17mm). Those figures are for corner to corner. This becomes interesting when you are comparing field of view of a fisheye to the field of view of rectilinear.

.

06-10-2016, 10:19 PM   #23
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
Why has no one mentioned the Samyang 8mm. It is well liked in the reviews. Bang for buck it is excellent.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/43-travel-events-groups/14300...whitecliff.jpg
06-10-2016, 11:03 PM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,186
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
In the first link provided (post #11) it lists the observed field of view for the lens at both 10mm and at 17mm each uncorrected.
  • 10 mm we have a FoV of 135 degrees wide by 85 degrees high
  • 17 mm we have a FoV of 85 degrees wide by 56 degrees high
The information in the Pentax Forums listing just repeats what Pentax lists for the lens - which is corner to corner - not the side to side (at the mid point) and from top to bottom (also at the mid point).

The reason for the post is that if you take a fisheye out in the field and take an image where the camera is level, the field of view is not the stated 180 degrees (10mm) nor the 100 degrees (17mm). Those figures are for corner to corner. This becomes interesting when you are comparing field of view of a fisheye to the field of view of rectilinear.

.
As I expected. Diagonal not side to side. The figures I have for the other lenses were also measured the same - so what am I missing? I think we are in agreement. I think we are off track. The point I was making is that the diagonal measure of the 17mm is just slightly wider than the 12mm of the 12-24.
06-11-2016, 01:39 AM   #25
Senior Member
Krusty Surfer's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 119
Pro Optics 8mm full manual- crack shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh steal
Aloha
06-11-2016, 03:44 AM   #26
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Krusty Surfer Quote
Pro Optics 8mm full manual- crack shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh steal
Aloha
Yeah Pro Optics , Samyang, Bower, Rokinon--- Same lens
Attached Images
 

Last edited by GUB; 06-11-2016 at 03:50 AM.
06-11-2016, 09:01 AM   #27
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mgvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,029
I did some work assessing the Samyang/Bower 8mm FE, the Sigma 10-20, and the DA 10-17 FE in terms of field of view. I also was checking to see how it worked to defish the fisheyes if needed. (Behind this effort is that I like my Sigma 10-20, but it is kind of a big lens, and I was wanting to see how the DA 10-17 FE would work in its place if I needed a rectilinear view. Quick conclusion: There are compromises, but the DA 10-17 is a good option, and it is a fun lens for its intended fisheye view.) HERE is the thread.

As for field of view (FOV), here's a chart I've worked out trying to sort out diagonal and horizontal FOV. You can see how much wider the DA 10-17 is compared to the Sigma 10-20. (One other thing this chart does show is that the DA 10-17 FE and the DA 16-85 make a great pair for full coverage as do the Sigma 10-20 and DA 18-135.)
06-11-2016, 09:50 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,700
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
As I expected. Diagonal not side to side. The figures I have for the other lenses were also measured the same - so what am I missing? I think we are in agreement. I think we are off track. The point I was making is that the diagonal measure of the 17mm is just slightly wider than the 12mm of the 12-24.
  • As I expected. Diagonal not side to side. - I have no idea where you get "diagonal not side to side". The measurement figures provided are side to side, through an actual physical measurement. But whatever...
  • I think we are off track. The point I was making is that the diagonal measure of the 17mm is just slightly wider than the 12mm of the 12-24. - In that we agree.
The main point is that it is difficult to compare fisheye lenses to normal or rectilinear lenses. Focal length does not provide an apples to apples comparison, thus conveys little information to the nominal photographer.

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!
camera, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, ultrawide
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
4k vs 1440p Ultrawide Monitor for Photo Editing ? G.E.Zekai Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 20 07-06-2017 07:55 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 8-16 ultrawide zoom for Pentax Wheatridger Sold Items 7 05-21-2014 09:03 PM
How to compensate for ultrawide blown highlights DeadJohn Photographic Technique 7 02-28-2012 08:47 PM
Ultrawide zoom recommendation for Infrared jfsavage Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 11-18-2008 05:06 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:23 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