Originally posted by Mccsiz If you aren't keen on exploiting the "classic fisheye look" why not use a different lens?
I didn't think I'd said anything to suggest I didn't want to exploit the fisheye distortion. I was trying to be informative in answer to your question.
As to why not use a different lens - on researching before buying the lens, a number of users said how versatile the lens is. A view I agree with. First, yes, you can exploit the classic fisheye look but, personally, I think that suits particular images/subjects (which vary as they present themselves in the viewfinder).
Second, there seemed to be a consensus that at the longer end of the zoom range it became a useful ultra wide-angle lens with little fisheye distortion if used carefully. The image you commented on was one such, and the result is an almost rectilinear shot but covering a wider area than my normal rectilinear UWA zoom lens. The 10-17 more or less expands the horizontal area covered from just beyond that covered by my normal 10-24mm zoom.
Third, the lens was already on the camera and it produced the composition I wanted, so no need to change the lens.
Colin