Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-01-2008, 01:09 PM   #16
Pentaxian
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 848
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Even if I did get the 200 or 300, I think that I wouldn't notice the difference in the tele shots I usually take. They are usually more limited in sharpness by motion of the subject than the lens.
Ok you are not a tele person. Camera or subject motion do have major effect. But there is major merit of either DA200/300 over that of a consumer zoom at the tele end.

This is from a manual focus A300mm













QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
I find that the 14 is not as wide as I want to go relative to the 17 on my Tamron. I mainly bought the fixed 14 for the high-altitude balloon flights as an upgrade to the 18-55 II kit I used last time.

The theoretical FoV of a FE 16mm is on paper the same as a rectilinear 16mm. But my FE 16mm looks definitely wider than its rectilinear counterpart. I did not research into this subject and I am sure about it though. If you want to go wider or wilder, go with FE


You may compare the rect WA 16mm (J Scott sample at 14mm)above with the same 16mm FE 16mm in here





Daniel

09-01-2008, 01:12 PM   #17
Pentaxian
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 848
QuoteOriginally posted by J.Scott Quote
I have a DA 10-17mm and really do like the images it produces. However, be prepared for a lot of PF (purple fringing) under the 'right' conditions. Below is an example. In fact, it should be described as torture testing the poor lens! I produced the image on a very bright winter afternoon by deliberately including some sun flare. The crop is a 500% blow up of a small area on the image. Under less strenuous conditions it performs admirably. (In this case I just wanted to bend lamp posts in the sun - it's lots of fun. But just thought it fair to warn you that PF will happen with this lens.
Hey J,
It is physically unavoidable to have PF in WA shots. Your example is an exagerated one facing direct sunlight. Even for normal FL like 50mm it is problematic


Daniel
09-01-2008, 01:52 PM   #18
Pentaxian
danielchtong's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 848
QuoteOriginally posted by troyz Quote
Makes sense to me -- if you need better results than defishing can provide you can always go back to the DA14.

Even with Zen 16mm, defished image/lines are almost in straight lines. All I need to do is to set the FoV to around 70 degree under PSP version 8














Daniel
09-01-2008, 02:07 PM   #19
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
Daniel, my understanding is that the last picture was taken with the FE, and then converted to RL with a FOV of 70 deg? I like that shot. Do you still happen to have the unconverted version?

09-01-2008, 08:02 PM   #20
Veteran Member
troyz's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 389
QuoteOriginally posted by danielchtong Quote
The theoretical FoV of a FE 16mm is on paper the same as a rectilinear 16mm. But my FE 16mm looks definitely wider than its rectilinear counterpart. I did not research into this subject and I am sure about it though.
Here are two useful discussions of the differences between fisheye and rectilinear lenses (trigonometry included)

Field of View - Rectilinear and Fisheye Lenses


Fisheye Projection - PanoTools.org Wiki

Field of view for a 16mm fisheye is greater than field of view for a 16mm rectilinear (magnification at the center is the same).
09-01-2008, 09:21 PM   #21
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
Thanks for all the advice here. I have decided to go with the Pentax 10-17 fisheye. Your comments and pictures were very helpful. I guess I have learned that wide angle 2D projections are a somewhat subjective subject.

I am looking forward to using this lens. It seems to me that one really has to "think" when framing any type of wide-angle shot.
09-02-2008, 01:51 AM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,553
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxPoke Quote
Thanks for all the advice here. I have decided to go with the Pentax 10-17 fisheye. Your comments and pictures were very helpful. I guess I have learned that wide angle 2D projections are a somewhat subjective subject.
I am very susceptible to motion sickness. Even a couple of minutes with a fisheye lens is enough to produce a headache and general feeling of unease for me. It probably isn't an issue for most people, but it is worth enough thought before making a purchase just check to it off as not an issue.

Thank you
Russell
09-03-2008, 10:14 PM   #23
Veteran Member
PentaxPoke's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,411
Original Poster
Just got my 10-17 Fisheye today! I really like this lens. It is really not as "fishy" as I thought, and I enjoy how wide I can get with this lens. When I take a very wide angle shot and then use a conversion to rectilinear, it confirms my personal preference that very wide angle shots look better to me with fisheye distortion than rectilinear stretching.

Thanks for the advice all. The lens is also very nice and compact and feels very well made. The metal lens cap feels great and very "old school"


Last edited by PentaxPoke; 09-03-2008 at 10:20 PM.
09-03-2008, 10:45 PM   #24
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
My original kit when I bought my K20D were the DA 10-17, DA 18-250, and FA 50/1.4 or indoors and night. It's been, what, four months now? and I'm still happy with those. But not happy enough to keep from buying more lenses... So a Vemar 12mm sits on my desk waiting for the right mount, and a Zenitar 16mm should arrive Real Soon Now, and a Lentar 21mm has a prominent place in my bag, and I'm desperately trying to squeeze my budget to get a Pelang 8mm. Now I need to go somewhere to use these, somewhere that isn't crowded with pine trees. I HATE PINE TREES -- TOO MANY VERTICAL LINES FOR FISHEYEING!! Maybe I should go crawl around a quarry.
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!
angle, fisheye, k-mount, opinions, pentax, pentax lens, question, slr lens, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Extreme wide angle portraits (not fisheye) levelred Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 04-09-2010 11:30 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Zoom Fisheye to Super Wide-Angle SMCP-DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 ED (IF) AF MikeDubU Sold Items 1 02-04-2009 02:37 PM
Wide angle: rectilinear or fisheye? mikem Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 05-24-2008 09:48 PM
10-17 Fisheye AND another wide angle? jmdeegan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 01-18-2008 08:02 PM
Sigma Super Wide Angle 10-20mm or Pentax Fisheye? azcavalier Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 10-13-2007 01:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:19 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