[lesmore49]

I'm thinking of getting a Pentax 10-17 fisheye for use on my K10D and KM. I have seen pictures taken with this lens and although it is a fisheye, it seems to be a mild fisheye.

Which is fine with me, I mostly want a wide angle but also being able to have a bit of fisheye at 10 mm.

Is this lens also a competent wide angle ?

I have 16-45 Pentax and 18-55 wideangle zooms and although I enjoy them, I want something that can be used as a top quality, mild fisheye and an extreme wide angle.

Is the Pentax 10-17 the lens for me ?

How do owners or users find them...quality of picture, etc.

I like to take pix of vintage cars...wide angle is what I like to do with cars.
lesmore49 is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

[wlachan]

I have this lens and it is really well made with good optics (but kind of severe CA, the photozone review is quite accurate). However, it has severe barrel distortion at 17mm by wide angle standard. You can pull them straight with software but if a wideangle is what you really want, get a wide angle, not fisheye. Something like the DA12-24/2 might be what you need.

[Andrew Faires]

I got the 10-17 as a temporary measure until Pentax puts something out in the 10-11mm range. At 10mm, it's a true fisheye, complete with massive distortion. At 17mm, the effect is mild, but there's still a ton of distortion. You could probably get away with it to some extent, but I think you're better off getting a UWA if you want the best quality UWA photograph. The 10-17 would be a compromise on that front.

Having said that, I didn't realize using a fish-eye could be as much fun or produce really serious results until I checked out the fish-eye thread. I'd suggest (if you haven't already) go through it and see what people here are capable of with this lens. That's the thread which sold me on the 10-17.

[jogiba]

I was going to get the 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 Fisheye zoom but since I already had the 15mm F2.8 AF Sigma Fisheye for full frame DSLRs that works more like a 15mm wide-angle I decided to get the 6.5mm F3.5 Opteka Fisheye lens instead. So far I am satisfied with the lens.


A test shot with it.
6.5mm Opteka @F8 HDR strong 1/30 sec 100iso



First bike riding test with Pentax K-7 and 6.5mm Fisheye:



15mm F2.8 AF Sigma 180° Fisheye for full frame DSLRs

[reeftool]

I bought this lens in the spring and am very happy with it. I use it as my wide angle and find the distortion is not bad. It can be controlled with framing and PP to produce a very non fishy photo. Probably like most, finances played a big part in my decision. The price isn't bad and I wanted a fisheye. I also have the 12-24 on my wishlist but can't swing both right now. I have been pleasantly surprised at how much general use I get with this lens. It isn't very fishy at the longer end at all.

[attack11]

I'm thinking of getting a Pentax 10-17 fisheye for use on my K10D and KM. I have seen pictures taken with this lens and although it is a fisheye, it seems to be a mild fisheye.

Which is fine with me, I mostly want a wide angle but also being able to have a bit of fisheye at 10 mm.

Is this lens also a competent wide angle ?

I have 16-45 Pentax and 18-55 wideangle zooms and although I enjoy them, I want something that can be used as a top quality, mild fisheye and an extreme wide angle.

Is the Pentax 10-17 the lens for me ?

How do owners or users find them...quality of picture, etc.

I like to take pix of vintage cars...wide angle is what I like to do with cars.
lesmore49 is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

the 10-17 is a true aps-c square fish eye. depending how you line it up with the horizon you can get extreme or mild fish eye effects. it really depends on the person behind the camera.

at 10mm you have 180d fov, at 17mm you have 90d fov. if you want a round fish eye (circle in black), you'll want a different lens.

[Andi Lo]

As far as I know this "different lens" to produce a circle image in APS-C is ONLY the 4.5mm sigma, CMIIW

[Blue]

the 10-17 is a true aps-c square fish eye. depending how you line it up with the horizon you can get extreme or mild fish eye effects. it really depends on the person behind the camera.

at 10mm you have 180d fov, at 17mm you have 90d fov. if you want a round fish eye (circle in black), you'll want a different lens.

I know this thread is a few weeks old. I recently noticed that the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye which shares the optical formula with the pentax as well as other specs is rated for full-frame cameras.

[jogiba]

It has the same optics as the Pentax 10-17mm, but in a different body to fit Nikon and Canon.

It does not work with film cameras or full-frame or 1.3x Canon cameras.

Tokina 10-17mm

[Ash]

Didn't see this thread before.
The DA 10-17 is a real performer.
The FE effect is strong at the wide end, images come out beautifully rendered with bold contrast and colours, and it is a well built little gem.
I've had lots of fun shooting with it.

User Photo Gallery - Night Scene
User Photo Gallery - Night Scene

[audiobomber]

I have 16-45 Pentax and 18-55 wideangle zooms and although I enjoy them, I want something that can be used as a top quality, mild fisheye and an extreme wide angle.

Is the Pentax 10-17 the lens for me ?

How do owners or users find them...quality of picture, etc.

IMO the 10-17 is the lens for you. I consider it a great complement to a 16-45. The 16-45 has reasonably wide angle covered with lowish distortion, the 10-17 at 17mm gives an wider angle with controlled distortion, and the 10mm end gives you crazy artistic licence. Great colour and contrast and good sharpness, the photos are quite similar to what I get from the 16-45.

Tokina 10-17mm

Typical Ken Rockwell garbage, dumps on a lens he's never seen. No need for him to try one though, because it isn't Nikon and doesn't line his pockets, so it's nothing.

[Blue]

Tokina 10-17mm

Should I believe Ken "had never tried it" Rockwell or Tokina?

The new Tokina AT-X 107 DX is a full-frame fish-eye lens that gives the photographer a 180&Mac176; field of view with dramatic curvature of field or “fish-eye” effect.

Tokina

I already knew it came mainly in Nikon & Canon mount which is typical for 90% of the current Tokina line up most of which has Pentax optical formulae. What I was getting at is if Tokina can get full frame out of it, I suspect Pentax can to. I should have posted the link before to spare the Ken Rockwood pan handling.


Ash: The 1st 2 images are interesting, especially the 2nd one. Were those from a tall building or aircraft?


Edit: This is more b.s. fro K.R. as well:

DX: Only works on small (Nikon and 1.6x Canon) digital cameras, not film.

The 100mm Tokina macro is a DX lens and is the counterpart to the D FA 100mm Pentax which is a full frame film and digital lens.

Also, the G and his definition of DX comes from Nikon terminology which he makes a mistake of assuming they are equivalent in Tokina which is silly since they make mounts for different systems.

[Derridale]

I have both the Pentax 10-17 fisheye you refer to, plus the Sigma 10-20 wideangle.

For general landscape and indoor use, the Sigma is by far the better lens.

For special effects, that "Wow!" factor, and where you don't mind some fisheye distortion, the Pentax is good.

If you only want to get one, and you want mainly landscape/indoor etc abilities, then I'd go for the Sigma personally.

[audiobomber]

IIf you only want to get one, and you want mainly landscape/indoor etc abilities, then I'd go for the Sigma personally.

The OP is primarily interested in automobile photography and has a 16-45mm. The Sigma 10-20 overlaps a great deal with the 16-45, is half a stop slower than the 10-17 and will provide far less opportunity for fitting a car in a frame than the fisheye at a crowded car show.

Pentax 16-45mm F4: Angle of view 35 - 83°
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6: Angle of View 63.8 - 102°
Pentax 10-17mm F3.5-4.5: Angle of view 100 - 180°

Fisheye distortion can be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on one's preferences. Personally I love it. Sometimes I see an interesting photo op with a fisheye where I don't see a photo with a wide rectilinear lens. I am amazed that I can photograph a building while standing on the sidewalk in front of it. I know the fisheye has a lot of distortion but I don't hesitate to use it at 17mm for normal wide-angle photos. Composition can help minimize the fishy look.

[interested_observer]

Ash, those are wonderful shots of the city, great use of the lens!!!

Overall, I have had the 10-17 for over 3 years, and I do like the lens a lot. There is quite a bit that you can do with the lens, and it is somewhat unique. All that has been said here about the lens is true. Almost a year ago now, I finally was able to acquire the 12-24 and like the Sigma 10-20, I think that the two lens complement each other very well - each has their respective uses. The 10-17 has a FoV of 180 to 100 degrees with the 12-24 running from 99 to 60 degrees. So you have to understand that the focal length numbers really do not tell the entire story.

Where the 10-17 excels is where a UWA rectilinear lens is just not sufficiently wide enough to get the shot, especially where stitching does not work (things in motion, etc). Another area is that you can get extremely close to very large subjects, and still get the shot.

Obviously, there are the drawbacks of heavy distortion - which is to be expected. I have gone ahead and attached a couple of images. The first one is at 10mm with the full 180 degrees Field of View. The second image is the defished version of the shot - you can see that by defishing the image, you do not automatically loose the distortion - however with the 12-24 or the 10-20 at best you could only get a bit over half the scene in the frame. The last one is shot almost straight down, thus the bend was forced to the top of the frame. The photographer does have a lot of latitude in how the picture is framed....