pentax fisheyes...

insulinguy · 10-06-2009, 11:46 AM

just wondering if anyone has a preferred fisheye that they like? i am about to pull the trigger and get the pentax 10-17mm but ive heard good things about the sigma 10-20 (for way less) or just jumping all the way to one of those zenikar (sp?) 8mm fixed. i see them on ebay all the time - while the pentax 10-17mm is my first choice ( i love pentax glass) the price is a bit hefty. cheapest ive see on ebay was about 400. any suggestions? thanks!

Last edited by insulinguy; 10-06-2009 at 12:21 PM.

wlachan · 10-06-2009, 11:54 AM

Have the Pentax and love it; smooth metal construction (inner barrels) and good sharpness, but PF is quite obvious, just like what the photozone test says.

SOldBear · 10-06-2009, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by insulinguy

i am about to pull the trigger and get the pentax 10-77mm but ive heard good things about the sigma 10-20 (for way less)...

The Pentax 10-17mm (not 10-77mm) is a FE. I don't think the Sigma 10-20mm is a FE. They are two different animals.

You first have to determine if you like the FE effect.

If you're looking for a FE zoom, the Pentax is the only one. Tokina has a similar lens (probably the same), but not for Pentax mount (no point).

Also, I don't think the Sigma 10-20mm price is "way less" than that of the Pentax.

**blackcloudbrew** · 10-06-2009, 12:13 PM

The DA 10-17 is a unique lens, period. Just do it, you will not regret it.

insulinguy · 10-06-2009, 12:23 PM

well - i have seen the pentax for 439 on ebay and the sigma for under 300 so...thats way less to me. but odds are ill just jump on the pentax - i havent seen one image from it that i didnt like!

Big G · 10-06-2009, 12:31 PM

I have the Pentax 10-17mm FE and the Sigma 10-20mm - they are totally different from each other.

I don't use the FE that much, but it's great for urban abstracts but hopeless for landscapes unless you want that level of distortion. The Sigma is a rectilinear lens so does not exhibit the distoritions.

The Sigma is my landscape lens of choice.

deadwolfbones · 10-06-2009, 01:05 PM

Where are you seeing the Sigma for under $300? I got mine at the lowest price around, for $429 a couple months back.

That said, the Pentax is a fisheye and the Sigma is rectilinear (like the Pentax 12-24). Not a fair comparison.

daacon · 10-06-2009, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Big G

I have the Pentax 10-17mm FE and the Sigma 10-20mm - they are totally different from each other.

I don't use the FE that much, but it's great for urban abstracts but hopeless for landscapes unless you want that level of distortion. The Sigma is a rectilinear lens so does not exhibit the distoritions.

The Sigma is my landscape lens of choice.

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]

insulinguy · 10-06-2009, 01:14 PM

granted - it was a sigma being sold from an indivdual and not BUY IT NOW - but it was under 300. most of them are more - true - but ive seen it for less. and i dont mind the distortions at all - but thanks for making the disctintions between the lesnes as i was going to buy it for landscapes. i would probably use it 80% of the time though to be honest - i love wide angles for portraits, street photo, urban decay and landscapes.

Big G · 10-06-2009, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by daacon

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).

Exactly, I don't want to have to worry about my distortions, particularly when you have two thirds foreground, one third sky and pointing down down at a rockpool. The Sigma is a much better tool for that sort of work than the FE. You can also forget about using filters and polarisers on the FE making it even more hopeless for a landscaper.

**Ash** · 10-06-2009, 01:21 PM

You may find the 10-17 not appropriate for all landscape shots, whereas the 10-20 (being a rectilinear) would suit most wide angle applications.

Using the 10-17 for landscapes, you may find yourself having to stay at the 17mm end to avoid distortions (which are least pronounced there), so there may be less flexibility - having said this it's a fun lens to have, and you can see the type of images it (and other FE lenses) can produce by reviewing this thread:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33549-fisheye-...ye-photos.html

I have both the 10-17 and 12-24 - both totally different lenses, and although I use the 12-24 more, the 10-17 has a special place in my photography...

wasser · 10-06-2009, 01:27 PM

I too think calling it "hopeless" is a little being a little harsh.

It plays pretty nice at 17mm. However, one important thing to consider, with regard to the 10-17mm and landscapes, is not being able to use filters at all.

Big G · 10-06-2009, 01:31 PM

Yes, which is what I said above - not being able to use filters or polarisers makes it a very unwise choice for a landscape lens.

wasser · 10-06-2009, 01:33 PM

True, I missed an entire sentence. :x

daacon · 10-06-2009, 01:36 PM

Indeed not being able to use filters hurts for landscapes. Like Ash I have the 12-24 which I use much more often. I just took offense at the hopeless comment

- that landscape I have above is without any filters and at 10mm ... so there are uses other than distortion and as mention at 17mm it is much less noticeable.

The DA 10-17 is the one lens I usually always have with me.

10-06-2009, 11:46 AM	#1
insulinguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Fort Worth, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 134	pentax fisheyes... just wondering if anyone has a preferred fisheye that they like? i am about to pull the trigger and get the pentax 10-17mm but ive heard good things about the sigma 10-20 (for way less) or just jumping all the way to one of those zenikar (sp?) 8mm fixed. i see them on ebay all the time - while the pentax 10-17mm is my first choice ( i love pentax glass) the price is a bit hefty. cheapest ive see on ebay was about 400. any suggestions? thanks! Last edited by insulinguy; 10-06-2009 at 12:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What Fisheyes are available to K10?	gozerthegozarian	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	10-21-2008 01:28 PM
Photokina : Sigma announces 2 fisheyes lenses for Pentax	ghelary	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	09-23-2008 10:06 AM
fisheyes make you seasick?	nostatic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	02-21-2008 07:16 PM
Fisheyes	AV82GOLF	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	10-19-2007 12:31 PM
Fisheyes - Zenitar vs Pentax 10-17?	Groucho	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	07-05-2007 06:03 AM

10-06-2009, 11:54 AM	#2
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Have the Pentax and love it; smooth metal construction (inner barrels) and good sharpness, but PF is quite obvious, just like what the photozone test says.

10-06-2009, 12:08 PM	#3
SOldBear Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Alameda, CA Posts: 3,206	Originally posted by insulinguy i am about to pull the trigger and get the pentax 10-77mm but ive heard good things about the sigma 10-20 (for way less)... The Pentax 10-17mm (not 10-77mm) is a FE. I don't think the Sigma 10-20mm is a FE. They are two different animals. You first have to determine if you like the FE effect. If you're looking for a FE zoom, the Pentax is the only one. Tokina has a similar lens (probably the same), but not for Pentax mount (no point). Also, I don't think the Sigma 10-20mm price is "way less" than that of the Pentax.

10-06-2009, 12:13 PM	#4
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	The DA 10-17 is a unique lens, period. Just do it, you will not regret it.

10-06-2009, 12:23 PM	#5
insulinguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Fort Worth, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 134 Original Poster	well - i have seen the pentax for 439 on ebay and the sigma for under 300 so...thats way less to me. but odds are ill just jump on the pentax - i havent seen one image from it that i didnt like!

10-06-2009, 12:31 PM	#6
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	I have the Pentax 10-17mm FE and the Sigma 10-20mm - they are totally different from each other. I don't use the FE that much, but it's great for urban abstracts but hopeless for landscapes unless you want that level of distortion. The Sigma is a rectilinear lens so does not exhibit the distoritions. The Sigma is my landscape lens of choice.

10-06-2009, 01:05 PM	#7
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Where are you seeing the Sigma for under $300? I got mine at the lowest price around, for $429 a couple months back. That said, the Pentax is a fisheye and the Sigma is rectilinear (like the Pentax 12-24). Not a fair comparison.

10-06-2009, 01:13 PM	#8
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914	Originally posted by Big G I have the Pentax 10-17mm FE and the Sigma 10-20mm - they are totally different from each other. I don't use the FE that much, but it's great for urban abstracts but hopeless for landscapes unless you want that level of distortion. The Sigma is a rectilinear lens so does not exhibit the distoritions. The Sigma is my landscape lens of choice. 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]

10-06-2009, 01:14 PM	#9
insulinguy Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Fort Worth, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 134 Original Poster	granted - it was a sigma being sold from an indivdual and not BUY IT NOW - but it was under 300. most of them are more - true - but ive seen it for less. and i dont mind the distortions at all - but thanks for making the disctintions between the lesnes as i was going to buy it for landscapes. i would probably use it 80% of the time though to be honest - i love wide angles for portraits, street photo, urban decay and landscapes.

10-06-2009, 01:16 PM	#10
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Originally posted by daacon 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). Exactly, I don't want to have to worry about my distortions, particularly when you have two thirds foreground, one third sky and pointing down down at a rockpool. The Sigma is a much better tool for that sort of work than the FE. You can also forget about using filters and polarisers on the FE making it even more hopeless for a landscaper.

10-06-2009, 01:21 PM	#11
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	You may find the 10-17 not appropriate for all landscape shots, whereas the 10-20 (being a rectilinear) would suit most wide angle applications. Using the 10-17 for landscapes, you may find yourself having to stay at the 17mm end to avoid distortions (which are least pronounced there), so there may be less flexibility - having said this it's a fun lens to have, and you can see the type of images it (and other FE lenses) can produce by reviewing this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33549-fisheye-...ye-photos.html I have both the 10-17 and 12-24 - both totally different lenses, and although I use the 12-24 more, the 10-17 has a special place in my photography...

10-06-2009, 01:27 PM	#12
wasser Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: northern ca Photos: Gallery Posts: 427	I too think calling it "hopeless" is a little being a little harsh. It plays pretty nice at 17mm. However, one important thing to consider, with regard to the 10-17mm and landscapes, is not being able to use filters at all.

10-06-2009, 01:31 PM	#13
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Yes, which is what I said above - not being able to use filters or polarisers makes it a very unwise choice for a landscape lens.

10-06-2009, 01:33 PM	#14
wasser Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: northern ca Photos: Gallery Posts: 427	True, I missed an entire sentence. :x

10-06-2009, 01:36 PM	#15
daacon Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Alberta,Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 20,914	Indeed not being able to use filters hurts for landscapes. Like Ash I have the 12-24 which I use much more often. I just took offense at the hopeless comment - that landscape I have above is without any filters and at 10mm ... so there are uses other than distortion and as mention at 17mm it is much less noticeable. The DA 10-17 is the one lens I usually always have with me.