[jerryleejr]

Just curious who’s had success using it and your thoughts….Wonder when a FF version will be released…

JJ

[Belnan]

I believe it is useable on the long end. I'm sure you can find some pictures on the forum. I thought that a FF fish eye on the plans but I'm not sure if that is still the case.

[Paul the Sunman]

Just curious who’s had success using it and your thoughts….Wonder when a FF version will be released…

JJ

It was sort-of done early last year, with the HD refresh of the old SMC lens. As well as the coatings upgrade, the hood was made removable, which gives an almost-circular fisheye image on FF.

Even the SMC version is perfectly useable on FF above about 14.5 mm, but the hood (designed for APS-C) intrudes below that.

[LaHo]

….Wonder when a FF version will be released…

JJ

Well, there was an FF forerunner: the SMC Pentax-F 17-28mm F3.5-4.5 Fish-Eye. Production years: 1995 to 2004. This was a speciality lens from Pentax. Could be fun to test out on the K-1

[Pentax Syntax]

I have both DA 10-17 and F 17-28 fisheyes and both work well on the K-1ii. The close focusing is much better with the 10-17 versions but the 17-28 works well.

[LittleSkink]

I picked up a HD 10-17 earlier this year - rather disappointed in the aberrations esp purple fringe is pretty bad

But it is fun - mostly the knack seems to be picking a good foreground interest and managing the massive background so to not distract from it. Or to cram so much foreground in that everything goes slightly bonkers. Thinking 'fish eye' is definitively different to thinking 'ultra wide'

Dont regret getting it, but wonder if the money might have been better put towards the 11-18 which is approaching stellar by all accounts

[Cerebum]

It is an excellent lens. Flares horribly but you work round its shortcomings as you do with any lens. At its widest there is very little distortion and it is as sharp as you like in the centre. You just have to remember it is a lens with a more specific purpose. If you are happy with its well documented characteristics, its superb, if not, don't buy it I love mine and don't regret buying it for one second

[MaineNative]

The 10-17 is a fun lens. On the wide end there is lots of distortion and curvature. If you can put your subject or horizon in the middle of the lens, the picture doesn’t look bad. If the horizon is not in the middle, you get a curved horizon which can look strange.

It is great for getting pictures in churches, gardens or small buildings where the overall artistic elements aren’t lost if there is some distortion.

On the long end, the distortion isn’t too bad. The lens is also fairly small, so it is easy to carry in a pack for those special occasions you want an ultra-wide lens.

The DA version works on FF on the wide end if you are making a wide panorama shape because the top and bottom are cropped more than the sides.

[CarlJF]

The DA 10-17 is a very good and "creative" lens. And yes, it's different than a rectlinear one (like the 11-18) and get some work to get hang of it and control the effect to get what you want. Every people are different, some people will love it, others will never be able to get something good out of it. I guess it's mostly a matter of mindset on how you think the picture rather than any technical qualities or flaws of the lens.

I really love mine and it's one my favorite Pentax lens, although it's only to be used in specific settings when I know it should work and give something interesting and different than the usual UWA.

A few pictures (all with a K-3 and DA 10-17 "original non HD"), many if not all would have been impossible with a UWA because they all have a much widewr AOV:

[dbs]

I have the smc DA 10 - 17 and it is one of my favorites, it is a gem.


Dave

[microlight]

Another vote for the SMC 10-17. As has been said, as long as you work with its characteristics, it’s a great lens.

[Kwong]

Just curious who’s had success using it and your thoughts….Wonder when a FF version will be released…

JJ

I have the original and its just a fun lens. Used on my K3 have not tried it on my K1 ii. More fisheye effect at 10mm and at 17 its normal wide angle.

[Mot11]

I've used the 10-17 for many years and it is one of my favorite lens. It works well in narrow streets in Europe as well as in more open spaces where you want to get a wider view. As with all lens it has it's flaws but nothing major and not correctable in editing.

[Madaboutpix]

Excellent for tight spaces and creating a sense of claustrophobia, too. Admittedly, not an everyday shooting scenario. (Original smc version on a K-3, handheld in ambient light. As you can see, the outrageous purple fringing can be corrected in post. Wouldn't want to be without this inexpensive yet quite capable lens.)

All images taken at Berlin-Hohenschönhausen Memorial, the notorious former main Stasi prison for political offenders in the GDR:

[Mooncatt]

I picked up a HD 10-17 earlier this year - rather disappointed in the aberrations esp purple fringe is pretty bad

But it is fun - mostly the knack seems to be picking a good foreground interest and managing the massive background so to not distract from it. Or to cram so much foreground in that everything goes slightly bonkers. Thinking 'fish eye' is definitively different to thinking 'ultra wide'

Agree on all points. I got this lens as part of a bundle, and I think the biggest drawback is it requires you to have an eye for quirky. I've seen some great fisheye photos, but I just can't think that way and sold it off. Interesting you mention the different way of thinking, because the SMC DA 15mm limited basically lives on my camera.

I did get some good photos with the fisheye while doing some steel wool photography, and yes the purple fringing was a beast to reign in. Even if I liked the fisheye style of shooting, no way would I want that lens again.