Looking for advice

**barondla** · 01-04-2020, 10:18 AM

The cool thing about the new 10 -17 is it gives 2 looks. Circular fisheye (actually not quite circular, the top & bottom are cropped very slightly) to full frame fisheye. Zoomed up to fill the full frame sensor, it has the same field of view as the 17-28 fisheye at the at its 17 fisheye setting. It could be argued that on ff only the 10-17 stays fisheye over the whole range. The 17-28 doesn't appear like a fisheye at 28.

Keep in mind the 10-17 does fisheye on both APS-C and ff cameras. The 17-28 won't. One other point, when the original 10-17 came out Pop Photo's Herbert Keppler loved the much closer focusing vs the 17-28. This is important because a lot of FE shooting thrives on getting very close to the subject to maximize the weird perspective.

Thanks,
barondla

Wasp · 01-04-2020, 10:32 AM

Get the fisheye. It opens up new possibilities. This was taken with a Samyang 8mm f/2.8.

steve_k · 01-04-2020, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by ChristianRock

I think buying the fisheye and useing APS-C when you need WR makes sense, if those are your options...

Thank You. That is exactly what I was thinking

---------- Post added 01-04-20 at 12:25 PM ----------

Originally posted by barondla

The cool thing about the new 10 -17 is it gives 2 looks. Circular fisheye (actually not quite circular, the top & bottom are cropped very slightly) to full frame fisheye. Zoomed up to fill the full frame sensor, it has the same field of view as the 17-28 fisheye at the at its 17 fisheye setting. It could be argued that on ff only the 10-17 stays fisheye over the whole range. The 17-28 doesn't appear like a fisheye at 28.

Keep in mind the 10-17 does fisheye on both APS-C and ff cameras. The 17-28 won't. One other point, when the original 10-17 came out Pop Photo's Herbert Keppler loved the much closer focusing vs the 17-28. This is important because a lot of FE shooting thrives on getting very close to the subject to maximize the weird perspective.

Thanks,
barondla

Thank You. You have given much to think on and additional info to research. I didn’t think the 10-17 would fill the full frame sensor.

---------- Post added 01-04-20 at 12:26 PM ----------

Originally posted by Wasp

Get the fisheye. It opens up new possibilities. This was taken with a Samyang 8mm f/2.8.

Thank You definitely the direction I’m leaning towards.

**chuck_c** · 01-04-2020, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by barondla

Keep in mind the 10-17 does fisheye on both APS-C and ff cameras.
barondla

One of the things that I love most about this Forum is that you learn stuff even when you're just looking around.

**mikesbike** · 01-04-2020, 04:16 PM - **1 Like**

It seems to me getting the otherwise fine DFA 28-105mm would mean a lot of duplication of zoom lens FL, then you just want it for WR, while your idea of using APS-C for WR is much more sound.

The DA 10-17mm on a FF cannot provide a frame-filling FF image at its widest setting without serious vignetting, therefore is no longer frame-filling. You say you want the fisheye lens to produce images that fill the frame at all zoom settings. It would therefore not be capable of delivering as a zoom lens to much extent.

The F17-28mm fisheye zoom lens is a very good ultra-wide zoom lens for a FF body.

hypermodern · 01-05-2020, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by blackcloudbrew

Well, let's see, in full frame, I have the Lensbaby fisheye 5.8mm lens, fully circular, a bit hard to use but still fun

I also have a old Sigma 8mm lens, which is quite good too.

And an old Pentax K17 (mm) FE, which I have seldom found use for.

I seem to have an M42 Takumar 18mm FE, which I haven't used in 6 years...and have no full frame images of.

Well that's about it for my full frame FE's. Happy choosing.

I still think circular fisheye is weird.

**blackcloudbrew** · 01-05-2020, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by hypermodern

I still think circular fisheye is weird.

An observation for which I would not argue at all. Yep, it's weird but fun.

steve_k · 01-05-2020, 07:48 AM - **1 Like**

To everyone who mentioned the HD DA 10-17. Thank You very much. I didn’t know that were differences between the original and HD versions other than the coating. I wasn’t considering it until someone told me to check the in depth review. That is when I found that if you remove the lens hood you get circular images. Which in my opinion is weird it is also pretty cool at the same time.

So it seems that the HD DA 10-17 is the way to go. I can use it on my crop sensor bodies as a standard fisheye and on my K1 for circular images. Just have to wait a little longer because it’s $100 more than I budgeted.

The advantages of owning bodies with different sensor sizes.

**Kerrowdown** · 01-05-2020, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by steve_k

So should I purchase the fisheye or the WR lens?

I guessing it really all depends on how often your out in the wet stuff...

steve_k · 01-05-2020, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

I guessing it really all depends on how often your out in the wet stuff...

I have WR covered on K-3 II from 16mm to 300mm. Just limited on full frame to 100mm.

**Kerrowdown** · 01-05-2020, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by steve_k

I have WR covered on K-3 II from 16mm to 300mm. Just limited on full frame to 100mm.

Your better off than me... as none of my “Ladies” are WR.

**clickclick** · 01-05-2020, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by steve_k

To everyone who mentioned the HD DA 10-17. Thank You very much. I didn’t know that were differences between the original and HD versions other than the coating. I wasn’t considering it until someone told me to check the in depth review. That is when I found that if you remove the lens hood you get circular images. Which in my opinion is weird it is also pretty cool at the same time.

So it seems that the HD DA 10-17 is the way to go. I can use it on my crop sensor bodies as a standard fisheye and on my K1 for circular images. Just have to wait a little longer because it’s $100 more than I budgeted.

The advantages of owning bodies with different sensor sizes.

It's been interesting reading through this and seeing where you landed. I'm having a hard time keeping the HD 10-17 off my short list too. I also shoot APS-C and full frame, and this lens gains some appeal over others to move between the formats. I also have an 8mm Rokinon fisheye for crop and an SMC Takumar 17/4 for my full frame fisheye. Still want the 10-17 in the mix.

steve_k · 01-19-2020, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by clickclick

It's been interesting reading through this and seeing where you landed. I'm having a hard time keeping the HD 10-17 off my short list too. I also shoot APS-C and full frame, and this lens gains some appeal over others to move between the formats. I also have an 8mm Rokinon fisheye for crop and an SMC Takumar 17/4 for my full frame fisheye. Still want the 10-17 in the mix.

I was going to buy the HD DA10-17. But the best deal I could find was $500. Which I believe is it’s highest price. I ended up getting a F 17-28 off eBay for $170. Lens arrived yesterday.https://www.flickr.com/photos/147594123@N06/49410240557/in/dateposted-ff/

**clickclick** · 01-19-2020, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by steve_k

I was going to buy the HD DA10-17. But the best deal I could find was $500. Which I believe is it’s highest price. I ended up getting a F 17-28 off eBay for $170. Lens arrived yesterday.Taken with my new fisheye. | Stephen Krystopowicz | Flickr

Based on timing and price, I think you out bid me on that! All good - happy it went to a friend here at PF.

**mikesbike** · 01-19-2020, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by steve_k

I was going to buy the HD DA10-17. But the best deal I could find was $500. Which I believe is it’s highest price. I ended up getting a F 17-28 off eBay for $170. Lens arrived yesterday.Taken with my new fisheye. | Stephen Krystopowicz | Flickr

I think you'll enjoy it very much- and at a great price too! I sometimes use mine when I occasionally shoot film. No FF DSLR yet.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Looking for advice on post processing software	robysue	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	19	01-08-2020 11:00 AM
Looking for purchase advice on some "more experienced" cameras.	Gorgarath	Pentax DSLR Discussion	50	11-21-2019 06:50 PM
Looking for advice regarding lens choice.	universalfocus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	08-26-2019 11:17 AM
New member, looking for advice choosing a body.	DFJorquera	Welcomes and Introductions	9	01-26-2019 09:31 AM
Hello looking for some Pentax DSLR advice	plock	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	07-24-2018 07:04 AM

01-04-2020, 10:18 AM	#16
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	The cool thing about the new 10 -17 is it gives 2 looks. Circular fisheye (actually not quite circular, the top & bottom are cropped very slightly) to full frame fisheye. Zoomed up to fill the full frame sensor, it has the same field of view as the 17-28 fisheye at the at its 17 fisheye setting. It could be argued that on ff only the 10-17 stays fisheye over the whole range. The 17-28 doesn't appear like a fisheye at 28. Keep in mind the 10-17 does fisheye on both APS-C and ff cameras. The 17-28 won't. One other point, when the original 10-17 came out Pop Photo's Herbert Keppler loved the much closer focusing vs the 17-28. This is important because a lot of FE shooting thrives on getting very close to the subject to maximize the weird perspective. Thanks, barondla

01-04-2020, 10:32 AM	#17
Wasp Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Pretoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,660	Get the fisheye. It opens up new possibilities. This was taken with a Samyang 8mm f/2.8.

01-04-2020, 12:19 PM	#18
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708 Original Poster	Originally posted by ChristianRock I think buying the fisheye and useing APS-C when you need WR makes sense, if those are your options... Thank You. That is exactly what I was thinking ---------- Post added 01-04-20 at 12:25 PM ---------- Originally posted by barondla The cool thing about the new 10 -17 is it gives 2 looks. Circular fisheye (actually not quite circular, the top & bottom are cropped very slightly) to full frame fisheye. Zoomed up to fill the full frame sensor, it has the same field of view as the 17-28 fisheye at the at its 17 fisheye setting. It could be argued that on ff only the 10-17 stays fisheye over the whole range. The 17-28 doesn't appear like a fisheye at 28. Keep in mind the 10-17 does fisheye on both APS-C and ff cameras. The 17-28 won't. One other point, when the original 10-17 came out Pop Photo's Herbert Keppler loved the much closer focusing vs the 17-28. This is important because a lot of FE shooting thrives on getting very close to the subject to maximize the weird perspective. Thanks, barondla Thank You. You have given much to think on and additional info to research. I didn’t think the 10-17 would fill the full frame sensor. ---------- Post added 01-04-20 at 12:26 PM ---------- Originally posted by Wasp Get the fisheye. It opens up new possibilities. This was taken with a Samyang 8mm f/2.8. Thank You definitely the direction I’m leaning towards.

01-04-2020, 03:43 PM	#19
chuck_c Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Westerville, OH Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,588	Originally posted by barondla Keep in mind the 10-17 does fisheye on both APS-C and ff cameras. barondla One of the things that I love most about this Forum is that you learn stuff even when you're just looking around.

01-04-2020, 04:16 PM - 1 Like	#20
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	It seems to me getting the otherwise fine DFA 28-105mm would mean a lot of duplication of zoom lens FL, then you just want it for WR, while your idea of using APS-C for WR is much more sound. The DA 10-17mm on a FF cannot provide a frame-filling FF image at its widest setting without serious vignetting, therefore is no longer frame-filling. You say you want the fisheye lens to produce images that fill the frame at all zoom settings. It would therefore not be capable of delivering as a zoom lens to much extent. The F17-28mm fisheye zoom lens is a very good ultra-wide zoom lens for a FF body.

01-05-2020, 12:08 AM	#21
hypermodern Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 131	Originally posted by blackcloudbrew Well, let's see, in full frame, I have the Lensbaby fisheye 5.8mm lens, fully circular, a bit hard to use but still fun I also have a old Sigma 8mm lens, which is quite good too. And an old Pentax K17 (mm) FE, which I have seldom found use for. I seem to have an M42 Takumar 18mm FE, which I haven't used in 6 years...and have no full frame images of. Well that's about it for my full frame FE's. Happy choosing. I still think circular fisheye is weird.

01-05-2020, 06:56 AM	#22
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	Originally posted by hypermodern I still think circular fisheye is weird. An observation for which I would not argue at all. Yep, it's weird but fun.

01-05-2020, 07:48 AM - 1 Like	#23
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708 Original Poster	To everyone who mentioned the HD DA 10-17. Thank You very much. I didn’t know that were differences between the original and HD versions other than the coating. I wasn’t considering it until someone told me to check the in depth review. That is when I found that if you remove the lens hood you get circular images. Which in my opinion is weird it is also pretty cool at the same time. So it seems that the HD DA 10-17 is the way to go. I can use it on my crop sensor bodies as a standard fisheye and on my K1 for circular images. Just have to wait a little longer because it’s $100 more than I budgeted. The advantages of owning bodies with different sensor sizes.

01-05-2020, 02:20 PM	#24
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	Originally posted by steve_k So should I purchase the fisheye or the WR lens? I guessing it really all depends on how often your out in the wet stuff...

01-05-2020, 02:46 PM	#25
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708 Original Poster	Originally posted by Kerrowdown I guessing it really all depends on how often your out in the wet stuff... I have WR covered on K-3 II from 16mm to 300mm. Just limited on full frame to 100mm.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2020, 03:15 PM	#26
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	Originally posted by steve_k I have WR covered on K-3 II from 16mm to 300mm. Just limited on full frame to 100mm. Your better off than me... as none of my “Ladies” are WR.

01-05-2020, 03:17 PM	#27
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	Originally posted by steve_k To everyone who mentioned the HD DA 10-17. Thank You very much. I didn’t know that were differences between the original and HD versions other than the coating. I wasn’t considering it until someone told me to check the in depth review. That is when I found that if you remove the lens hood you get circular images. Which in my opinion is weird it is also pretty cool at the same time. So it seems that the HD DA 10-17 is the way to go. I can use it on my crop sensor bodies as a standard fisheye and on my K1 for circular images. Just have to wait a little longer because it’s $100 more than I budgeted. The advantages of owning bodies with different sensor sizes. It's been interesting reading through this and seeing where you landed. I'm having a hard time keeping the HD 10-17 off my short list too. I also shoot APS-C and full frame, and this lens gains some appeal over others to move between the formats. I also have an 8mm Rokinon fisheye for crop and an SMC Takumar 17/4 for my full frame fisheye. Still want the 10-17 in the mix.

01-19-2020, 11:35 AM	#28
steve_k Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Shelton, CT Photos: Albums Posts: 708 Original Poster	Originally posted by clickclick It's been interesting reading through this and seeing where you landed. I'm having a hard time keeping the HD 10-17 off my short list too. I also shoot APS-C and full frame, and this lens gains some appeal over others to move between the formats. I also have an 8mm Rokinon fisheye for crop and an SMC Takumar 17/4 for my full frame fisheye. Still want the 10-17 in the mix. I was going to buy the HD DA10-17. But the best deal I could find was $500. Which I believe is it’s highest price. I ended up getting a F 17-28 off eBay for $170. Lens arrived yesterday.https://www.flickr.com/photos/147594123@N06/49410240557/in/dateposted-ff/

01-19-2020, 04:16 PM	#29
clickclick Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: May 2016 Location: East Coast Posts: 2,903	Originally posted by steve_k I was going to buy the HD DA10-17. But the best deal I could find was $500. Which I believe is it’s highest price. I ended up getting a F 17-28 off eBay for $170. Lens arrived yesterday.Taken with my new fisheye. \| Stephen Krystopowicz \| Flickr Based on timing and price, I think you out bid me on that! All good - happy it went to a friend here at PF.

01-19-2020, 05:21 PM	#30
mikesbike Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2016 Location: Southeastern Michigan Posts: 4,549	Originally posted by steve_k I was going to buy the HD DA10-17. But the best deal I could find was $500. Which I believe is it’s highest price. I ended up getting a F 17-28 off eBay for $170. Lens arrived yesterday.Taken with my new fisheye. \| Stephen Krystopowicz \| Flickr I think you'll enjoy it very much- and at a great price too! I sometimes use mine when I occasionally shoot film. No FF DSLR yet.