[rpriedhorsky]

Hi all,

I have a DA 10-17 fisheye which I bought when my only other lens, a DA 18-250, was away in the shop (still is, bleh). It was fun for a little while, but I haven't touched it since I acquired other rectilinear lenses; here's the current stable:

DA 18-55 I
DA 18-250 (currently in the shop)
SMC Takumar 50mm
Sigma 17-70
Sigma 18-125

I can't stand changing lenses and never do it in the field. So if I use the 10-17, it's a fisheye day. The super-super wide is fun, but the fisheye effect is too funky for my tastes except perhaps in very rare circumstances.

With this in mind, the 10-17 seems unnecessary and I may as well exchange it for some money, which I can then exchange in turn for other goods and services. However, if I regret the sale, buying a new one will cost more than I'll make from the sale.

Any thoughts?

Reid

[maxwell1295]

My thoughts on this (because I've gone through this several times)....if you don't use a lens because it doesn't fit your eye or your style of photography, sell it. If you don't use a lens because the situation where you would use it doesn't come up very ofter AND the lens does fit your eye/style, keep it because you'd regret it later on.

I got a really good deal on a new DA12-24 a few months ago. I knew that if I sold it, I would not be able to replace it with spending $100 more. Still, the lens didn't fit me. It's a really good lens, but it didn't fit my eye (or my needs) so I sold it. Same thing with the Sigma 135-400mm. I don't miss either one of those lenses.

On the other hand, I wasn't using my FA50 very much so I decided to sell it. I knew it was a mistake the minute I dropped it off at the post office. I ended up paying more money to replace a lens that I had sold just a week earlier.

[larryinlc]

I say sell it. I've bought and sold many a lens due to impulse buys only to find they don't get used. The only lenses I have that I won't sell are those which are no longer made that may have some collector value.

Larry

[Andi Lo]

I personally love the DA 10-17. I do change lenses in the field and the 10-17 is a great walkabout together with 28-75. Would you rather have the 300++$ that it will net you on the used market or the fun hours you can spend with it? My friends get a kick everytime I use this lens to either make them look huge (close focus) or small (shot from above). It's one of my most versatile if not my most versatile lens, imo, since it does four things at once without any add ons (wide angle, fisheye, portrait, macro). If it's a fast aperture zoom and goes to 23mm rectilinear while keeping IQ.... that would make it a perfect lens for me (hey, I can dream right?). If you don't use it that much for whatever reason, you should sell it though.

From the time I got it I tried to "take my time" knowing it, since from what I see people seem to use it for a little while to get their little kick out of it, then sell it. I'm glad that I took my time because otherwise I probably wouldn't have used the lens in the many ways that it can be used.

By the way how do you find DA 18-250 compared with the sigma 17-70? Other than the Pentax - Sigma color differences?

[heliphoto]

I too find the 10-17mm fisheye to be funky (esp. the bokeh), and I've contemplated selling it, but I have a few shots from it which are some of my favorites (including the only print I've yet sold). I would miss having the potential to get those shots in the future.

In your case, since you aren't using it, I say sell it, and if you ever want it again, the used one's will probably still be about the same price.

[HansenTsang]

Fisheye is a specialty lens. If you don't think you will ever use it then sell it. I don't like the fisheye look so I have never owned or used a fisheye in over 40 years of photography. I prefer rectilinear ultra wides.

[Jewelltrail]

rpriedhorsky: I have a DA 10-17 fisheye which I bought when my only other lens, a DA 18-250, was away in the shop (still is, bleh). It was fun for a little while, but I haven't touched it since I acquired other rectilinear lenses; here's the current stable:

Your above words are very telling--sell the lens. It is not about the lens is; it is about you.

[ivoire]

Since you haven't used it in a while, the 'novelty' has probably worn off. Put it on the camera and go out and shoot with it for a day. Then decide.

[res3567]

Hi all,

I have a DA 10-17 fisheye which I bought when my only other lens, a DA 18-250, was away in the shop (still is, bleh). It was fun for a little while, but I haven't touched it since I acquired other rectilinear lenses; here's the current stable:

DA 18-55 I
DA 18-250 (currently in the shop)
SMC Takumar 50mm
Sigma 17-70
Sigma 18-125

I can't stand changing lenses and never do it in the field. So if I use the 10-17, it's a fisheye day. The super-super wide is fun, but the fisheye effect is too funky for my tastes except perhaps in very rare circumstances.

With this in mind, the 10-17 seems unnecessary and I may as well exchange it for some money, which I can then exchange in turn for other goods and services. However, if I regret the sale, buying a new one will cost more than I'll make from the sale.

Any thoughts?

Reid

If you sell it, how much do you want for it?

[Venturi]

The super-super wide is fun, but the fisheye effect is too funky for my tastes except perhaps in very rare circumstances.

To me, that gives you the answer you're looking for. It would me, at least.

Unless you're just collecting for the sake of it, a lens in your bag that you really don't like much and/or only have very rare use for is a waste. As iGilligan's (Gus') tagline reads: "Get what makes you happy, anything less makes you less happy"

[Andi Lo]

Fisheye is a specialty lens. If you don't think you will ever use it then sell it. I don't like the fisheye look so I have never owned or used a fisheye in over 40 years of photography. I prefer rectilinear ultra wides.

Fisheye is a speciality type but the 10-17 is not a speciality lens! It's more like a jack of all trades lens with fisheye as one of its elements. Just my opinion of course That said if the OP style is rectilinear he might be better off with a DA 15 or the 12-24.

[Ash]

Yep, agree with others.
Although if it's just because it's a FE lens, and you still want something ultra-wide (wider than your Sigma 17-70), perhaps a Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24 would be more useful for you.
Only you can tell if you 'need' the extra FLs.

[reeftool]

I've had my 10-17 for about a month now and love it. No way will I get rid of it although I will be keeping my eye out for a non fisheye wide lens like the Sigma 10-20 or the 12-24 if I can get a good deal. I kind of like the fisheye look but it may not be for everybody.

[ryno]

The 10-17 is the only lens I've sold then bought again. I don't use it often, but many of my favs are with it.
Ryan

[thomascdk]

I love the 10-17. Don't use it a lot, but it's a great lens. I think you should go shoot with it before parting.