pentax10-17 or 12-24 or sigma10-20

Tammmzy · 10-20-2008, 09:10 PM

Hello everyone,
I'm new to this forum but was so excited to find a pentax forum. My husband recently bought me a pentax 10-17 fish eye lens for my birthday. So sweet of him because I had talked about how I loved wide angle lenses and loved some of the effects you could get with them.
I'm wondering however if people find it worth keeping them, I wonder if the distortion is too much sometimes? I do love the cool funky pics you can take with it though.
I was thinking of exchanging it for maybe the sigma 10-20. The pentax 12-24 is quite a bit more money and it seems better to have the wider part of the 10-20.
Any opinions would be GREATLY appreciated as im so bad at making decisions. I just want all the lenses!
Thank you!

ariahspam · 10-20-2008, 09:21 PM

You must decide first: fisheye or rectilinear?

If you really love the fisheye effect, stay with it, as in the future, a DA 12-24 would complement it nicely (from the field of view covered).

As for myself, I would get the 12-24, but that's my personal need and taste.

tomtor · 10-20-2008, 11:20 PM

The 10 fisheye is Much wider than the 10 rectilinear of the Sigma.

You can defish the 10-17 with software.

I should keep the 10-17 and you could get the 12-24 in the future. I also have both, you cannot really compare them. Note that wide rectilinear lenses have perspective distortion. People on the side become stretched. In many cases the fisheye image (certainly at 17mm) is more pleasing!

About wanting all the lenses, that's only natural, each lens has its advantages and exists for a purpose

Welcome to the forum.

Wulifou · 10-21-2008, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by tomtor

You can defish the 10-17 with software.

I'll happily show my deep ignorance here : what's the point in defishing a fisheye ?? Isn't the fisheye effect the fun part of it ? Or did you mean that once "defished", the 10-17 is still much wider than the sigma 10-20 (which I did use on a Nikon D80 BTW, and I just loved it ...)?

thx a lot for clarifying, this topic is very interesting for myself as well

frank · 10-21-2008, 01:12 AM

DA1017 is a fun lens to use, but I do feel a lens like DA1224 or Sigma DC1020 is more useful in the long run. I had the DA1017 before, kinda got tired of the fisheye effect after sometime ... just me though.

I chose DA1224 over DC 1020 mostly due to its better handling, and being a Pentax ...

tomtor · 10-21-2008, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Wulifou

I'll happily show my deep ignorance here : what's the point in defishing a fisheye ?? Isn't the fisheye effect the fun part of it ? Or did you mean that once "defished", the 10-17 is still much wider than the sigma 10-20 (which I did use on a Nikon D80 BTW, and I just loved it ...)?

thx a lot for clarifying, this topic is very interesting for myself as well

You can defish the fisheye image if:

- you don't own a rectilinear wide lens (but perhaps wished you had)
- you used a FE but later you wished that you had changed your lens to a rectilinear.

So, in a way you have two lenses in one. Note that you can go from fisheye to rectilinear, but obviously not the other way around. The resulting defished image might be less sharp than the equivalent from eg the sigma 10-20, especially in the corners, although the sigma is also known to be not that sharp at 10mm in the corners.

Note that a defished 10mm FE is the same as a rectilinear image from the Sigma at 10mm, not wider.

See

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=26331785

for example images from me.

Wulifou · 10-21-2008, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by tomtor

The resulting defished image might be less sharp than the equivalent from eg the sigma 10-20, especially in the corners, although the sigma is also known to be not that sharp at 10mm in the corners.

Note that a defished 10mm FE is the same as a rectilinear image from the Sigma at 10mm, not wider.

See

Examples: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

for example images from me.

thx a lot, Tom. Interesting images on dpreview. For my part, I'll probably get the 10-20. It's not so much the loss of sharp edges, but the fact that an defished image still is not quite rectilinear.

tomtor · 10-21-2008, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Wulifou

thx a lot, Tom. Interesting images on dpreview. For my part, I'll probably get the 10-20. It's not so much the loss of sharp edges, but the fact that an defished image still is not quite rectilinear.

Hi Wulifou,

But isn't image 3 from my example rectilinear? How is it different from a Sigma 10-20 image?

Wulifou · 10-21-2008, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by tomtor

Hi Wulifou,

But isn't image 3 from my example rectilinear? How is it different from a Sigma 10-20 image?

as far as I see it, there is still quite a bit of distorsion you can find when looking at the wooden floor bottom left, as well as on all angles between walls and ceiling. At least the equirectangular one. The one defished with Hugin has not these distorsion, but as you mention yourself, is rather extreme (even if an panoramic TV set looks interesting ....)

tomtor · 10-21-2008, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Wulifou

as far as I see it, there is still quite a bit of distorsion you can find when looking at the wooden floor bottom left, as well as on all angles between walls and ceiling. At least the equirectangular one. The one defished with Hugin has not these distorsion, but as you mention yourself, is rather extreme (even if an panoramic TV set looks interesting ....)

Both 3 and 4 are defished with Hugin. You will get image 3 from using the Sigma at 10 *with* the extreme distortion. It is not an artifact from defishing. That's the reason why I said that 10mm Sigma is sometimes just too much stretched at the edges and a fisheye does not do that...

Wulifou · 10-21-2008, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by tomtor

You will get image 3 from using the Sigma at 10 *with* the extreme distortion. It is not an artifact from defishing.

Oh, didn't realize that. The few times I used the sigma indoors, it was around 14mm. And I didn't realize in the landscape shots at 10mm that the distortion was so extreme (no panoramic wide TV Set at the beach to remind me the correct proportions ....)
thx a lot for the explanations Tom !

not quite sure if Tammmzy has made up her mind now, but it definitely helped me a lot

tomtor · 10-21-2008, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Wulifou

And I didn't realize in the landscape shots at 10mm that the distortion was so extreme

It is just an artifact from folding a wide view from the 3D world around us on a flat rectangular piece of paper. It does not fit in a way our brain perceives as natural.

That applies to a fisheye with its deformed straight lines and to extreme wide rectilinear lenses with the perspective distortion. It's a matter of taste.

I wonder what Tammmzy will decide with her fisheye.

Thanks, it was a nice discussion.

simonkit · 10-21-2008, 09:42 AM

As mentioned the 1st question is whether you like the 10-17 "effect", if so then stick with it...

I own the Sigma 10-20 and am very pleased with it, even though it took 3 copies to find a good one !!

As mentioned the Sigma isn't particularly sharp in the corners or completely free from distortion at 10mm, at 12mm however it is very good in both respect, I've often wondered how the Sigma at 12mm compares to the Pentax..my suspicion is that the Sigma is as good as, if not better than the Pentax, for this reason & considering the rather large price difference I bought the Sigma

simon

Tammmzy · 10-21-2008, 03:20 PM

WOW! I just want to thank everyone for putting their 2 cents in here! I appreciate everyone's comments! I really am so bad at making decisions. I think its great to know that fish eye can be defished and that might make me keep this lens. What program would I use to do this? I think the fisheye effect is just so fun but I wanted the super wide angle mostly to take some cool landscape photographs when travelling. Maybe I should keep this fish eye and wait for the tamron 10-24 (does anyone know how much it is supposed to be?). Oh yet another lens to consider. I guess alot of my dilemma also has to do with the fact that the pentax only starts at 12 and I would like 10mm, but then people seem to be telling me not to go with sigma. But then is it silly to have a 10-17mm fish eye AS WELL as a 10-20 or 10-24 wide angle? I'm sorry about my indecisiveness!

ariahspam · 10-21-2008, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Tammmzy

But then is it silly to have a 10-17mm fish eye AS WELL as a 10-20 or 10-24 wide angle? I'm sorry about my indecisiveness!

Fisheye lenses have different field of view when compared to rectilinear. Overlapping mm does not matter. That's why I and other people told you fisheye 10-17 complements nicely with DA 12-24. Check the pentax site and you will see why they complement nicely (field of view in degrees covered). It is something like 180 - 100 for the fisheye and 100 - 60 for the DA12-24, in diagonal.

10-20-2008, 09:10 PM	#1
Tammmzy New Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 15	pentax10-17 or 12-24 or sigma10-20 Hello everyone, I'm new to this forum but was so excited to find a pentax forum. My husband recently bought me a pentax 10-17 fish eye lens for my birthday. So sweet of him because I had talked about how I loved wide angle lenses and loved some of the effects you could get with them. I'm wondering however if people find it worth keeping them, I wonder if the distortion is too much sometimes? I do love the cool funky pics you can take with it though. I was thinking of exchanging it for maybe the sigma 10-20. The pentax 12-24 is quite a bit more money and it seems better to have the wider part of the 10-20. Any opinions would be GREATLY appreciated as im so bad at making decisions. I just want all the lenses! Thank you!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA15 vs DA14 vs Sigma10-20/4-5.6 (9 shots)	tcom	Post Your Photos!	11	04-19-2009 11:00 PM

10-20-2008, 09:21 PM	#2
ariahspam Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Lima, Peru Posts: 68	You must decide first: fisheye or rectilinear? If you really love the fisheye effect, stay with it, as in the future, a DA 12-24 would complement it nicely (from the field of view covered). As for myself, I would get the 12-24, but that's my personal need and taste.

10-20-2008, 11:20 PM	#3
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	The 10 fisheye is Much wider than the 10 rectilinear of the Sigma. You can defish the 10-17 with software. I should keep the 10-17 and you could get the 12-24 in the future. I also have both, you cannot really compare them. Note that wide rectilinear lenses have perspective distortion. People on the side become stretched. In many cases the fisheye image (certainly at 17mm) is more pleasing! About wanting all the lenses, that's only natural, each lens has its advantages and exists for a purpose Welcome to the forum.

10-21-2008, 01:01 AM	#4
Wulifou Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: France and Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 73	Originally posted by tomtor You can defish the 10-17 with software. I'll happily show my deep ignorance here : what's the point in defishing a fisheye ?? Isn't the fisheye effect the fun part of it ? Or did you mean that once "defished", the 10-17 is still much wider than the sigma 10-20 (which I did use on a Nikon D80 BTW, and I just loved it ...)? thx a lot for clarifying, this topic is very interesting for myself as well

10-21-2008, 01:12 AM	#5
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	DA1017 is a fun lens to use, but I do feel a lens like DA1224 or Sigma DC1020 is more useful in the long run. I had the DA1017 before, kinda got tired of the fisheye effect after sometime ... just me though. I chose DA1224 over DC 1020 mostly due to its better handling, and being a Pentax ...

10-21-2008, 04:41 AM	#6
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by Wulifou I'll happily show my deep ignorance here : what's the point in defishing a fisheye ?? Isn't the fisheye effect the fun part of it ? Or did you mean that once "defished", the 10-17 is still much wider than the sigma 10-20 (which I did use on a Nikon D80 BTW, and I just loved it ...)? thx a lot for clarifying, this topic is very interesting for myself as well You can defish the fisheye image if: - you don't own a rectilinear wide lens (but perhaps wished you had) - you used a FE but later you wished that you had changed your lens to a rectilinear. So, in a way you have two lenses in one. Note that you can go from fisheye to rectilinear, but obviously not the other way around. The resulting defished image might be less sharp than the equivalent from eg the sigma 10-20, especially in the corners, although the sigma is also known to be not that sharp at 10mm in the corners. Note that a defished 10mm FE is the same as a rectilinear image from the Sigma at 10mm, not wider. See http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=26331785 for example images from me.

10-21-2008, 06:07 AM	#7
Wulifou Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: France and Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 73	Originally posted by tomtor The resulting defished image might be less sharp than the equivalent from eg the sigma 10-20, especially in the corners, although the sigma is also known to be not that sharp at 10mm in the corners. Note that a defished 10mm FE is the same as a rectilinear image from the Sigma at 10mm, not wider. See Examples: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review for example images from me. thx a lot, Tom. Interesting images on dpreview. For my part, I'll probably get the 10-20. It's not so much the loss of sharp edges, but the fact that an defished image still is not quite rectilinear.

10-21-2008, 06:36 AM	#8
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by Wulifou thx a lot, Tom. Interesting images on dpreview. For my part, I'll probably get the 10-20. It's not so much the loss of sharp edges, but the fact that an defished image still is not quite rectilinear. Hi Wulifou, But isn't image 3 from my example rectilinear? How is it different from a Sigma 10-20 image?

10-21-2008, 08:04 AM	#9
Wulifou Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: France and Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 73	Originally posted by tomtor Hi Wulifou, But isn't image 3 from my example rectilinear? How is it different from a Sigma 10-20 image? as far as I see it, there is still quite a bit of distorsion you can find when looking at the wooden floor bottom left, as well as on all angles between walls and ceiling. At least the equirectangular one. The one defished with Hugin has not these distorsion, but as you mention yourself, is rather extreme (even if an panoramic TV set looks interesting ....)

10-21-2008, 08:24 AM	#10
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by Wulifou as far as I see it, there is still quite a bit of distorsion you can find when looking at the wooden floor bottom left, as well as on all angles between walls and ceiling. At least the equirectangular one. The one defished with Hugin has not these distorsion, but as you mention yourself, is rather extreme (even if an panoramic TV set looks interesting ....) Both 3 and 4 are defished with Hugin. You will get image 3 from using the Sigma at 10 with the extreme distortion. It is not an artifact from defishing. That's the reason why I said that 10mm Sigma is sometimes just too much stretched at the edges and a fisheye does not do that...

10-21-2008, 08:34 AM	#11
Wulifou Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: France and Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 73	Originally posted by tomtor You will get image 3 from using the Sigma at 10 with the extreme distortion. It is not an artifact from defishing. Oh, didn't realize that. The few times I used the sigma indoors, it was around 14mm. And I didn't realize in the landscape shots at 10mm that the distortion was so extreme (no panoramic wide TV Set at the beach to remind me the correct proportions ....) thx a lot for the explanations Tom ! not quite sure if Tammmzy has made up her mind now, but it definitely helped me a lot

10-21-2008, 09:07 AM	#12
tomtor Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 382	Originally posted by Wulifou And I didn't realize in the landscape shots at 10mm that the distortion was so extreme It is just an artifact from folding a wide view from the 3D world around us on a flat rectangular piece of paper. It does not fit in a way our brain perceives as natural. That applies to a fisheye with its deformed straight lines and to extreme wide rectilinear lenses with the perspective distortion. It's a matter of taste. I wonder what Tammmzy will decide with her fisheye. Thanks, it was a nice discussion.

10-21-2008, 09:42 AM	#13
simonkit Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: North Wales, UK Posts: 645	As mentioned the 1st question is whether you like the 10-17 "effect", if so then stick with it... I own the Sigma 10-20 and am very pleased with it, even though it took 3 copies to find a good one !! As mentioned the Sigma isn't particularly sharp in the corners or completely free from distortion at 10mm, at 12mm however it is very good in both respect, I've often wondered how the Sigma at 12mm compares to the Pentax..my suspicion is that the Sigma is as good as, if not better than the Pentax, for this reason & considering the rather large price difference I bought the Sigma simon

10-21-2008, 03:20 PM	#14
Tammmzy New Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 15 Original Poster	WOW! I just want to thank everyone for putting their 2 cents in here! I appreciate everyone's comments! I really am so bad at making decisions. I think its great to know that fish eye can be defished and that might make me keep this lens. What program would I use to do this? I think the fisheye effect is just so fun but I wanted the super wide angle mostly to take some cool landscape photographs when travelling. Maybe I should keep this fish eye and wait for the tamron 10-24 (does anyone know how much it is supposed to be?). Oh yet another lens to consider. I guess alot of my dilemma also has to do with the fact that the pentax only starts at 12 and I would like 10mm, but then people seem to be telling me not to go with sigma. But then is it silly to have a 10-17mm fish eye AS WELL as a 10-20 or 10-24 wide angle? I'm sorry about my indecisiveness!

10-21-2008, 03:49 PM	#15
ariahspam Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Lima, Peru Posts: 68	Originally posted by Tammmzy But then is it silly to have a 10-17mm fish eye AS WELL as a 10-20 or 10-24 wide angle? I'm sorry about my indecisiveness! Fisheye lenses have different field of view when compared to rectilinear. Overlapping mm does not matter. That's why I and other people told you fisheye 10-17 complements nicely with DA 12-24. Check the pentax site and you will see why they complement nicely (field of view in degrees covered). It is something like 180 - 100 for the fisheye and 100 - 60 for the DA12-24, in diagonal.