[lesmore49]

Hopeless ??? this is from the DA 10-17 ... keep it level watch the lines on the edges and you get an image with very little distortion. Now tilt it up or down and the effect becomes very pronounced (which is fun as well).

Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/9.0
Focal Length: 10 mm
Exposure: +0.60
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: Off, Did not fire


[IMGWIDELEFT]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3524/3965665771_f95811879e_b.jpg[/IMGWIDELEFT]

I'm seriously considering getting either the Sigma 10-20 extreme wide angle or the Pentax 10-17 Fisheye.

Your post and picture are very helpful. In the past I have assumed that if you use 10mm on the Pentax 10-17 you will...always... get a fisheye view...but at 17mm you will get a moderate wide angle pix.

I like to take close up pictures of vintage cars, hot rods and wide landscape vistas.

I was leaning towards the Sigma as I felt I would @ 10 mm always get extreme wide anglee views...if I could get 'regular' 10 mm wide angle views at 10 mm with my Pentax K10D or KM ...I would go the way of the Pentax 10-17 fisheye, as opposed to the Sigma 10-20.

Can you confirm if taking pictures of cars at extreme closeups...but keeping the camera level would give me a 'normal' extreme wide angle pictures...without the fisheye effect...but if I tilt the 10-17 up or down...then and only then would I get a fisheye view ? Have I got this right ?

Thanks...I really appreciate any info you can provide on the Pentax 10-17 FE.

How do you find the clarity ? Currently I use the Pentax 16-45 for car shows, landscapes and I've very happy with the moderate wide angle view it provides. I only wish I could get a closer...more extreme wide 'traditional ' angle view and picture.

Do you think the 10-17 would provide this ? I occasionally would use the fisheye effect...but for the most part would like the extreme wide angle at 10 mm.

BTW...I'm very impressed with the wide angle shot you took @ 10 mm on your Pentax 10-17.

Thank you.

---

Last edited by lesmore49; 10-06-2009 at 01:46 PM.

[wasser]

Whether you use it at 10mm or 17mm, it's always a fisheye and will always produce a lot of barrel distortion (IE with a fisheye you will always be using the fisheye effect). In landscapes, especially if you're not familiar with the area, it's easy to not see the distortion, but it's there. In an unfamiliar landscape, the only known straight line is often just the horizon. Placing that in the exact center of the frame easily masks that distortion. With other familiar objects and things with straight lines, this distortion is much more easily evident.

Compare the distortion of the 10-17mm to that of the DA 14/2.8. Also, check out images taken with the 10-17mm. Most of those are towards the 10mm end.

Will you be happy with the distortion? I don't know. You're really going to have to decide for yourself. I personally love my 10-17mm. It's a really fun lens that does things I couldn't possibly do with any other lens. However, I also have a DA 15mm that I'd say the same about.

As for the "clarity", I'm guessing you're asking about its sharpness, where it performs quite well. However, the optical problem with the fisheye is chromatic aberrations. The purple fringing can be particularly bad.

Oh, another nice feature of the 10-17mm FE is how close it focuses. I think you can get to like 2 inches. Every time I get that close I have to check I'm not going to run into something.

[daacon]

Indeed the 10-17 always produces a fisheye effect it is just some shots can hide it better than others. I would suggest if you would rather have wide angle (rectilinear) shots of cars , you need to go with the Sigma 10-20 or Pentax 12-24. Counting on always holding the fisheye level and avoiding lines makes no sense.

The DA 10-17 can produce interesting and fun images , however if you don't like the fisheye effect don't get it That picture above is not how I use the lens 98% of the time and those oppertunites do not always preent themselves (for example had there been trees on the edges you would have noticed the fisheye effect more).

[lesmore49]

Thank you both. The info you provided regarding the 10-17 FE helps a lot when deciding.

[reeftool]

I love my 10-17. It is always in my bag. There is always a little distortion but not much at the long end. I do use it for landscapes. I like the effect it gives and framing can avoid some curvature and some can be corrected in PP. I would love to have the SIgma 10-20 or the Pentax 12-24 also but my finances were limited and the 10-17 turned up one day in the marketplace at a good price and now I have it. Absolutely no regrets whatsoever. My main reason for wanting an extreme wide angle lens was to get shots of my daughters crew team boats getting the whole boat (50+ feet) from close distances. It does that well plus I find myself using it for much, much more. I took this shot from just a few feet from the trailer. I posted some others in the current POTW.