[Adam]

Another cheap option would be the Samyang 8mm fisheye, or one of the rebrands. You should be able to get one used in the mid $100's.

It's tough to find really wide vintage lenses because back in the film days you didn't need as short focal lengths, and the widest lenses available back then were super niche and are thus collectable.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[rr1736]

The Rokinon 14 F2.8 really is a decent lens

[Cerebum]

Excellent advice :0) the rokinon/samyang 14mm is around the £150-200 mark, as are the sigma 10-20 and the tamron. The Pentax is about £225. A fish eye is on my wish list and I do covet the Pentax so it makes sense to save up and get what I really want first time. Also it will give me lots of lovely options. Thanks guys. I have saving to do

[kh1234567890]

Get the DA 16-45 lens for around £80-100 and sell off your DA 18-55 for £40-50. You won't get wider than 16mm for under £100. Alternatively, keep an eye out for a Sigma 10-20 that may fall into your budget. I've seen them go for less than £150 but only very rarely.

+1 for the DA16-45 as a cheap option to go wider and better IQ than the kit DA18-55. Mine gets used a lot and 16 mm is about as wide as I need most of the time.

Search: smcpda1645mmf40edal | Flickr

The DA10-17 FE is indeed not all that fishy above some 12mm but is less sharp and more susceptible to fringing.

DA10-17 zooming out in 1mm steps :

[Cerebum]

What a neat way to demonstrate :0)

I totally understand the logic of swapping the 18-55 for the 16-45 but I live in NW England where WR gets a lot of use. Locally we have thirty words for rain. It is something I will keep in mind though as it would be an improvement in quality.

I have also been looking at the Samyang 8mm because I fancy something fishy. The Samyang is 3/4 of the way to the price of the Pentax but doesn’t have the flexibility. I am pretty much sold on the 10-17, unless a sigma 10-20 or a Tamron fall into my lap.

Thanks again for all your input. This has been an interesting thread :0)

[pepperberry farm]

for a short while, I had both the Rokinon (Samyang) 8mm and the DA 10-17mm. - I sold the Rokinon after using it for a month in the Single in Challenge; there were just too many shortcomings when compared to the DA 10-17mm...

the DA 10-17mm, however, is full of pixie dust...

[HarisF1]

The 10-17 isn't WR either, so you'll still struggle to use it when it's raining. Another option may be the DA*16-50 which has a pretty decent wide end. There's a bit of distortion and fringing wide open but that can easily be rectified in post-processing if it causes any concern.

[kh1234567890]

What a neat way to demonstrate :0)

I totally understand the logic of swapping the 18-55 for the 16-45 but I live in NW England where WR gets a lot of use. Locally we have thirty words for rain. It is something I will keep in mind though as it would be an improvement in quality.

I have also been looking at the Samyang 8mm because I fancy something fishy. The Samyang is 3/4 of the way to the price of the Pentax but doesn’t have the flexibility. I am pretty much sold on the 10-17, unless a sigma 10-20 or a Tamron fall into my lap.

Thanks again for all your input. This has been an interesting thread :0)

I have both the DA16-45 and the DA18-55WR - living in Manchester I appreciate your point about having WR, but your alternatives aren't WR either.

There have been many threads about the DA10-17 vs the Samyang 8mm. I also have both. The Samyang is a better fisheye, but of course it does not have the flexibility of zoom and AF. It does however have a better projection and a wider field of view. For example, if you want to do 360 degree panoramas then with the Samyang you only need 6 shots (4 directions + zenith and nadir). The Pentax needs 8 (6+2).

There have also been many threads on defishing fish-eyes. It is not hard, but you lose image quality in the stretched image corners. And framing gets a bit more tricky, since you have to visualise what your shot will look like when defished.

[Cerebum]

Ah, me not being clear again lol. My only WR lenses are the 18-55 & a 50-200, neither are perfect but at least rain doesn't freak me out :0) I know the 10-17, like my SMC da 35mm isn't WR, be nice if it was but hey :0)

---------- Post added 01-02-18 at 09:58 AM ----------

for a short while, I had both the Rokinon (Samyang) 8mm and the DA 10-17mm. - I sold the Rokinon after using it for a month in the Single in Challenge; there were just too many shortcomings when compared to the DA 10-17mm...

the DA 10-17mm, however, is full of pixie dust...

OK, I am confused, good pixie dust where it applies a little bit of magic to your image or bad pixie dust which makes your perceived image fly off into the ether leaving you with really bad pixie dust, I.e. a pile of cr*p? :0)

[pepperberry farm]

sorry, pixie dust is a good thing...

[Cerebum]

sorry, pixie dust is a good thing...

Thank god for that! I had this mental image of having to shoot....... Take pictures dressed as Tinkerbell


And I only do that on alternate sundays

[mtgmansf]

Many have suggested a 16mm or 17mm. However, most people who use these lenses, would not consider anything higher than 14mm (on DX) to be an ultrawide! As many have noted, your choices are the 14mm Rokinon/Samyang/Wallimax or Sigma f4-5.6, in used condition. I have both and the Sigma makes more sense, if you use filters! The Rokinon makes more sense if you need the wider, f2.8 aperture and/or plan to eventually use the FX or a 35mm Pentax. Also consider Tamron 10-18mm, used. The more options the faster you will get your lens on the Bay, Craigslist, etc.

[sbh]

What a neat way to demonstrate :0)

I totally understand the logic of swapping the 18-55 for the 16-45 but I live in NW England where WR gets a lot of use. Locally we have thirty words for rain. It is something I will keep in mind though as it would be an improvement in quality.

I have also been looking at the Samyang 8mm because I fancy something fishy. The Samyang is 3/4 of the way to the price of the Pentax but doesn’t have the flexibility. I am pretty much sold on the 10-17, unless a sigma 10-20 or a Tamron fall into my lap.

Thanks again for all your input. This has been an interesting thread :0)

That sounds like a good plan.

Thirty words??? Are they for different types of rain or just synonyms for rain in genereal?

[cyberjunkie]

Have a look at the thread I started about the Peleng 8mm.
On APS-C it covers almost all the frame, can be easily defished, has great sharpness at the center of the picture.
It suffers flare, but is great indoors. Has a proper fisheye projection, unlike the Rokinon/Samyang.
Can be found like new for around (or even less) 100 pounds.
It opens new doors, and gives the kind of perspective that only fisheye lenses can give

Cheers

Paolo

[Sandy Hancock]

Just get a 10-17. I've had one for over five years and it owes me nothing. It nearly always finds a place in my bag.

Now that I have a full frame fisheye and the DFA15-30 I could live without it, but postage to the UK might be a barrier