Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-20-2013, 08:57 AM   #16
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
DA 10-17 is a very, very versatile lens. at 10mm it's very fishy, and at 17mm it can pass as an ultra wide angle.

The close focus capability give it enough magnification to rival standard zooms, and to make fun portraits as well. Environmental portraits with the 17mm can be acceptable if you watch where you put the humans

Not the mention, the build quality and the prettyness! I think of DA 10-17 as a true modern takumar, it's very nice to use and very smooth to handle. Sharpness and color is amazing, but the resolution is not stellar. Nevertheless the images look very crisp and pops out of the screen / print.

If you haven't used it, you owe it to yourself to try. Remember not to use it constantly though, as you'll probably tire from the effect. use it once every month / two weeks and it's very very very fun everytime you click the shutter. Dont limit yourself with the "normal applications" for this lens and try out everything.

I'm selling mine due to moving to Nikon but this probably will be the hardest lens for me to let go. (yes there's the tokina version in Nikon, but the one I love is the DA)

Technically I'd give the lens 8 out of 10, but it's perhaps the most fun lens I own, and for that I give it 10/10

08-20-2013, 10:29 AM   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 69
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
If I didn't have an 8mm FE I'd seriously consider the 10-17.
On a general note now. FE lenses are not as popular in Europe or Asia as here, in the US.
Here's a snippet of my theory :
If you have not too much to take pictures of you resort to "fun effects". FE lenses do offer some sort of "fun".
Funny faces, funny pets, funny looking (otherwise bland) food, funny "architecture" (duh...)
On my trip to Poland I only took some cheapo p&s Nikon. Of fear of being mugged and robbed of my K-5, or NX1000 , or that plus life.
Pictures I snapped ...well I even sold some of them to niche magazines here in the US...
08-20-2013, 06:17 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 667
I really love mine. I got it because a lot of couples want the wide angle fisheye shot from the back of their ceremony. Even though I got it for a specific reason it is one of my favorite lenses for a photo walk, maybe because it is not the expected perspective to be shooting from for city type of shots. Anyway, if the deal is good, I say go for it! Do a single in September challenge and really push yourself to think with the fisheye perspective.
08-20-2013, 07:39 PM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
I have had my 10-17 for almost 5 years now. As others have posted its a fisheye across the entire range, however at the widest - 10mm it appears to be a true fisheye. As you progress through out the range to the narrowest end, the fisheye effect appears very subdued. It is still there, but you really need to look.

Another approach to judge is the Angle of View (AoV). At 10mm its 180 degrees corner to corner, while at 17mm its 100 degrees. The DA 12-24 has a an AoV that starts at 100 degrees (12mm) and goes to 60 degrees (24mm). Based on these two lenses AoV wise they complement each other perfectly, however based on focal length there appears to be a substantial overlap. This is due to one being a fisheye while the other a normal or rectilinear lens.

It is indeed a specialty lens, however it is incredibly fun to use. I doubt that you would want to use it daily, however there are applications that it just excels at. Getting close to very large objects, and then grabbing a wide shot where you have things in motion and stitching will just not work.

The fisheye effect is very pronounced when you shoot objects with very straight lines and square corners. Scenes with lots of natural curves - trees, mountains and the like the fisheye effect can be very gentle. You, as the photographer, are able to determine where you want to place the "bend" in the image by ever so slightly tipping the camera up or down. You can have a very straight horizon also.

Just one word of caution - when using it, check the frame for where your toes are - as its easy to get your feet in the bottom edge of the frame.



08-21-2013, 12:24 AM - 1 Like   #20
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I have had my 10-17 for almost 5 years now. As others have posted its a fisheye across the entire range, however at the widest - 10mm it appears to be a true fisheye. As you progress through out the range to the narrowest end, the fisheye effect appears very subdued. It is still there, but you really need to look.

Another approach to judge is the Angle of View (AoV). At 10mm its 180 degrees corner to corner, while at 17mm its 100 degrees. The DA 12-24 has a an AoV that starts at 100 degrees (12mm) and goes to 60 degrees (24mm). Based on these two lenses AoV wise they complement each other perfectly, however based on focal length there appears to be a substantial overlap. This is due to one being a fisheye while the other a normal or rectilinear lens.
Something that is not yet useful - towards the 17mm end, it is an FF lens, and the wider FOV shows the fisheye effect stronger. (I put this lens on my Pentax Z1-P 35mm camera and took some photos which I have scanned in and published. The green rectangle in those photos corresponds to an APS-C sensor, showing just what extra would be included on an FF camera).

The Adobe lens profiles with Lightroom and ACR automatically de-fish photos with this lens by default! (A bit of a shock when I first tested it). Obviously this can be switched off. But also, they can partially de-fish, by reducing but not eliminating the "distortion". Combined with suitable software like this and others, this makes it an even more versatile lens.
08-21-2013, 02:04 AM   #21
Veteran Member
skankin_giant's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Deepest Darkest Cornwall
Posts: 497
I bought mine 2nd hand, and love it, always fancied a fisheye when I had film, and when deciding what lens to get as my 1st non kit lens I went for the 10-17, and have not regretted it, I used it as a walk around lens for a while, was great fun! It is one reason I wont be changing brand or up for FF it's a cracking lens.

Some of mine...

10mm






Just realised I have not done much at the other end....

Cheers, Steve
08-21-2013, 02:19 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
I forgot to post the major con of this lens in my earlier comment. (Someone has to do it.) The resolution: the IQ is not better then the kitlens. But, again, the lens more then makes up for that with it's versatility and enormous fun-factor.
08-21-2013, 02:21 AM   #23
Loyal Site Supporter
ivanvernon's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Medina, OH
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,102
Da 10-17

Definitely buy this lens. Everyone has already said everything worth saying, but I would emphasize the versatility of having full fisheye at 10 mm as well as slightly fish-eye wide angle at 17 mm. You have to practice with this lens to learn how to control its effects, i.e., as an earlier poster stated, placing straight lines of the scene in the center rather than at the side of the frame. If you have this lens, try it also for product photos, closeups--an application where the fisheye effect can be put to interesting and practical use.

08-21-2013, 02:42 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I forgot to post the major con of this lens in my earlier comment. (Someone has to do it.) The resolution: the IQ is not better then the kitlens. But, again, the lens more then makes up for that with it's versatility and enormous fun-factor.
Resolution wise, yes, but I find that pictures from this lens are much more contrasty than the kitlens. Color are also a little bit better. My observation only though.
08-21-2013, 03:53 AM - 1 Like   #25
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I forgot to post the major con of this lens in my earlier comment. (Someone has to do it.) The resolution: the IQ is not better then the kitlens. But, again, the lens more then makes up for that with it's versatility and enormous fun-factor.
This is a Photoshopped (mainly sharpening, for print rather than web) but uncropped photo taken with that lens. (10mm, 1/60 sec at f/8 on K-5). Yes, it benefited from sharpening. But the details were already there in the original raw image. My A3+ glossy print of this looks very sharp indeed, edge to edge, corner to corner, close up (just - the centre of the bar which was inches from the lens is getting out of focus) to far distance. I doubt if a kit lens would have this sort of corner definition (but I haven't got one to test).

Full sized version (Saved as a JPEG at level 8 quality).

08-21-2013, 04:35 AM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I forgot to post the major con of this lens in my earlier comment. (Someone has to do it.) The resolution: the IQ is not better then the kitlens. But, again, the lens more then makes up for that with it's versatility and enormous fun-factor.
I don't believe that the 10-17 was designed to compete with the kit lens. It can't. Let's take the sensor, something near the K5 - 3000 x 4000 pixels. When you swap lenses, the sensor's size does not change, it remains the same. What changes is the focal length (which is a difficult indicator to gauge). A more important aspect to the lens is the Angle of View. The AoV is tremendously larger for the 10-17 than the 18-55. What that translates to is that each pixel has a much larger of area to represent. The 10-17 at the 17mm end has an AoV of 100 degrees, while the 18-55 at the 18mm end has an AoV of 76 degrees. So that is about 50% more area (when taking length x width into account).

So, its 2 different lenses, each of which has their own use, and the types of each of the lenses are quite different, so it's apples to oranges comparison. The similar focal lengths is a real red herring.

QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
Resolution wise, yes, but I find that pictures from this lens are much more contrasty than the kitlens. Color are also a little bit better. My observation only though.
Yes, wide angle lenses in general have this quality of great color and improved contrast. The wider you go the greater the richness.

One other quality is how they (wide angle lenses) handle light. The wide angle lenses tend to be somewhat slow in the aperture, around f4 usually. However, since they are so wide and are capable of pulling in so much light, they tend to meter slightly different that one might expect. They tend to actually perform a bit faster that their relatively slow aperture would indicate.

08-21-2013, 04:56 AM   #27
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I don't believe that the 10-17 was designed to compete with the kit lens. It can't. Let's take the sensor, something near the K5 - 3000 x 4000 pixels. When you swap lenses, the sensor's size does not change, it remains the same. What changes is the focal length (which is a difficult indicator to gauge). A more important aspect to the lens is the Angle of View. The AoV is tremendously larger for the 10-17 than the 18-55. What that translates to is that each pixel has a much larger of area to represent. The 10-17 at the 17mm end has an AoV of 100 degrees, while the 18-55 at the 18mm end has an AoV of 76 degrees. So that is about 50% more area (when taking length x width into account).

So, its 2 different lenses, each of which has their own use, and the types of each of the lenses are quite different, so it's apples to oranges comparison. The similar focal lengths is a real red herring.
HUH?!? since when are we not allowed to compare the sharpness from lenses with a different focal length? (You should mail Photozone quickly; they're out of a job!) Sharpness, or the lack of it, can be compared just fine. The lack of sharpness in the DA 10-17 is not a characteristic of it being so wide. Otherwise the other UWA's would suffer from the same. It's just an indication. The DA 10-17 is not sharper then the 18-55 and the DA 12-24 is ultra-sharp, compared to the 18-55. Simple.
08-21-2013, 07:08 AM   #28
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Joensuu (Finland)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,750
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
Yes, wide angle lenses in general have this quality of great color and improved contrast. The wider you go the greater the richness.
This is an interesting fact. Ive experienced it not only with the 10-17 but also at the wide end of wide and normal zooms. Even in P&S cameras.

QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
One other quality is how they (wide angle lenses) handle light. The wide angle lenses tend to be somewhat slow in the aperture, around f4 usually. However, since they are so wide and are capable of pulling in so much light, they tend to meter slightly different that one might expect. They tend to actually perform a bit faster that their relatively slow aperture would indicate.
On th other hand I think this is not correct. Keeping every other variable equal, 10mm/4 = 2.5mm aperture, while 50mm/4 = 12.5mm. so technicaly, a 50mm f/4 lens lets in more light than a 10mm f/4 lens (movement blur is another issue) but the final result will depend on the subject size and distance. This is a good read on the topic: www.Clarkvision.com: Exposure and Digital Cameras

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
HUH?!? since when are we not allowed to compare the sharpness from lenses with a different focal length? (You should mail Photozone quickly; they're out of a job!) Sharpness, or the lack of it, can be compared just fine. The lack of sharpness in the DA 10-17 is not a characteristic of it being so wide. Otherwise the other UWA's would suffer from the same. It's just an indication. The DA 10-17 is not sharper then the 18-55 and the DA 12-24 is ultra-sharp, compared to the 18-55. Simple.
Resolution and sharpness are different things but the first one will dictate how much we can exploit the latter. So, for example, if shooting a subject with the kit lens at 18mm and the fisheye at 17mm and making sure the subject fills the same "ammount" of frame in the same way for both lenses, (so that the number of pixels on the subject is the same) then you could evaluate sharpness between the two. I am guessing the 10-17 will have a small advantage when both wide open.
08-21-2013, 07:29 AM   #29
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
Resolution and sharpness are different things but the first one will dictate how much we can exploit the latter. So, for example, if shooting a subject with the kit lens at 18mm and the fisheye at 17mm and making sure the subject fills the same "ammount" of frame in the same way for both lenses, (so that the number of pixels on the subject is the same) then you could evaluate sharpness between the two. I am guessing the 10-17 will have a small advantage when both wide open.
For Pete's sake...




08-21-2013, 08:16 AM   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle of Everywhere
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
QuoteOriginally posted by peos99 Quote
...for a pretty good price.
What do you guys think...?
If 'effect' is one of your photography goals, get it and don't look back.

BTW: It's well documented that the 03 FE on our own little Q is a great 'effect' lens, too.

Cheers... M
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
10-17mm, camera, dslr, eye, fish, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DA 10-17mm Fish-Eye (New) - $450 raybird Pentax Price Watch 6 06-28-2013 08:06 AM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 10-17mm Fish Eye manishved Sold Items 2 06-11-2012 10:46 AM
Wanted - Acquired: Pentax da 10-17mm fish-eye tonytooth Sold Items 2 05-17-2011 02:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 10-17mm Fish Eye Gr8erimage Sold Items 6 07-25-2009 05:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:07 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top