[goatsNdonkey]

I think I prefer the fishy version of the stream picture, but I'm odd that way.

Of wpresto's two stream pictures, I agree with you, Groucho, and I finally figured out why. In the first one, the fishy one, the trees in the background seem to be interacting more and moving, curving together. There is some of that in the second picture, but it is more energetic in the first. It reminds me of the energy that seems to be represented in swirly bokey. Of course it doesn't look like bokeh, but there is a swirl to it.

[Racer X 69]

Various RR stuff. The car in the foreground is for some kind of track maintenance, but I cannot psych out precisely how it works, what it does: track grinding, cleaning, alignment?

Not quite sure Walt.

But usually track maintenance equipment is set up to remove and replace the ties, while maintaining rail alignment and roadbed integrity. This piece may have been for the tie work, and another, companion car would be set up for handling the ballast for the bed. Yet another wagon might be tasked with rail joining.

This link has some interesting information about railroad maintenance.

[Scorpio71GR]

DA 10-17

[WPRESTO]

DA 10-17

Nice framing - you'd hardly know it was taken with a fish-eye.

[Scorpio71GR]

Nice framing - you'd hardly know it was taken with a fish-eye.

Thank you, that shot was begging for the 10-17.

This is the same spot with the Sigma 8-16 at 8mm to show what it actually looks like.

[Scorpio71GR]

Another 10-17 shot at 10mm from last nights sunset.

[WPRESTO]

Another 10-17 shot at 10mm from last nights sunset.

Curious how the shadows look much bigger than the tree casting them.
Kidding aside, I like the mood of that image.

[Geoliebert]

So Shots with my K50 and 10-17 Fisheye!

[jcdoss]

Kansas City taken with Pentax K-1 and K17/4 Fisheye by Jason Doss, on Flickr

[FreeSpirit9]

Not exactly a fish eye but the Sigma 8-16. I hope you don't mind me posting it in the fisheye thread.

It was the first time I've taken my new lens out and took a quick shot of the Brisbane skyline across the river from Southbank. Taken at 8mm.

Cheers
Frank.

[ivanvernon]

Thank you, that shot was begging for the 10-17.

This is the same spot with the Sigma 8-16 at 8mm to show what it actually looks like.

Great photo. However, I have one question. Why use a fisheye lens and then defish it? Is it simply to get a wide angle photo when lacking the appropriate FL in a standard lens?

[WPRESTO]

<<<@!1!@>>>

Sometimes, for exactly that reason. I sometimes do not want the fish-eye effect, but do want the horizontal coverage. Two choices: 1) defish a fish-eye image; 2) take two or more images and stitch in PP. The latter is very effective and the final image will have dense detail and excellent IQ. The former is quicker when taking the picture, and when defished only loses the corners, which commonly contain little of great visual interest and can be sacrificed if a more rectilinear rendering is desired. BTW: I have found that the rectilinear Sigma 8-16 @ 8mm has a horizontal coverage only slightly less than a Pentax 10-17mm @ 10mm.

[Scorpio71GR]

However the Sigma 8-16 is much much larger and heavier then the DA 10-17. The 10-17 is small enough to always find a spot in your bag. The 8-16 takes about the same amount of room as a medium telephoto.

[FreeSpirit9]

BTW: I have found that the rectilinear Sigma 8-16 @ 8mm has a horizontal coverage only slightly less than a Pentax 10-17mm @ 10mm.

That's really interesting. I would have thought that the extra 2mm would have given a wider field of view than the 10-17. I was actually looking at going as wide as possible with this lens, but it seems that it has its limitations..... I need to experiment more and see where its strengths / weaknesses are. As it is, I'm not sure its the best lens for night shots over water with light reflections. I see that there is some bending of the light reflections on the water at 8mm. I seem to get these on my A28 but not on my sigma mini wide 28. Need to investigate this phenomenon. It may be that an element in the lens may not be perfectly aligned, I don't know?

[Scorpio71GR]

That's really interesting. I would have thought that the extra 2mm would have given a wider field of view than the 10-17. I was actually looking at going as wide as possible with this lens, but it seems that it has its limitations..... I need to experiment more and see where its strengths / weaknesses are. As it is, I'm not sure its the best lens for night shots over water with light reflections. I see that there is some bending of the light reflections on the water at 8mm. I seem to get these on my A28 but not on my sigma mini wide 28. Need to investigate this phenomenon. It may be that an element in the lens may not be perfectly aligned, I don't know?

The 10-17 has a nearly 180 degree field of view at 10mm. Defishing takes it down to about what the Sigma 8-16 produces at 8mm. I do not about others but my 8-16 is about 1.5 stops darker than my other lenses. For night shots it takes Avery long shutter speed. I also stop the 8-16 down to somewhere between f8-f11. Having you tripod and camera level is a must. The 8-16 does forgive for poorly composed shots. I have learned that the hard way. For the 8-16 you may require shutter times longer than 30 seconds.

At 8mm the Sigma will exaggerate some effects, especially with straight lines going into the borders. You can see that here with the bridge. By 10mm the effect diminishes. I will admit that the 8-16 has never really become favorite for night shots.


There are times when the 8-16 will deliver a shot no other lens I have can. This is one of those times.


A sunset shoot out between the 8-16 and the 10-17.
8-16 @8mm


10-17 @10mm defished, f16 diffraction you I do not fear you.



The 8-16 has its strengths. No other lens in K mount can deliver what it does. For shooting indoors like in a museum or other tight spots it is a gem. I do know people who have gone through numerous copies to get a get a good one. Which is why I purchased mine new. My copy seems good enough for me but I am not a pixel peeper. I will add if I had to choose between to 8-16 and the 10-17, I would choose the 10-17 simply for its size and versatility. I will always take the 10-17 with me. I have to have a reason to take the 8-16.