Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-15-2010, 06:27 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
A 2nd hand Sigma 10-20 mm F4-5.6 DC EX in new state starting bidding from 275 Euro (no offers for 3 days)
- To buy or not to buy?
- Or should I offer 225 Euro and see if he/she really wants to sell?

09-15-2010, 06:30 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
In looking at the other kits proposed, I guess the real question is whether low light is important or not.

Interested Observer has the focal length I proposed covered well with zooms, but it is at F4-5.6 as opposed to F2.8. I shoot a lot of indoor stuff, even with my 70-200 (stage performances etc) and F2.8 is important, but that is something to be weighed (pun intended) against cost and weight of ultra fast zooms)

Audiobomber highlights the use of a good macro, and this is important, but before going that route, if one of your main zooms can do close up work, with perhaps 1:3 magnification, play with that first and find out if you want more. It is always good to have one zoom lens that can do close up because when travelling, perhaps with just 2-3 zooms (i.e. light weight kit) a macro lens would be left out, but if one of your lenses is capable, you can usually get by with it if needed. True macro, i.e. 1:2 or 1:1 which is only possible with a dedicated macro lens, is rarely needed.

As for holes in zoom lens ranges, don't worry too much about them, the difference for example in Interested Observer's kit between 45mm and 55mm (assuming he leaves the A50 at home) is only a few steps forward or back. Holes are more serious at the wide end, and there some overlap is good.
09-15-2010, 07:01 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
Yeah, I was also looking at a Tamron 10-24 mm (current offer 250 Euro, requested price 325 Euro)
- I don't know if I am going to use the ultra wide lens a lot, but they seem to keep value very well and some day I have to play with one either way...

Which "big" additional investment is most important after K-r with kit lenses and 35 mm F2.4?
- Longer & Faster "fashion" portrait prime, not decided on focal length yet...
- Fast tele zoom for "candid" portraits, probably Sigma 50-150 mm F2.8
- Dedicated macro lens

LBA without a camera...
09-15-2010, 08:00 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,998
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Thanks for your overview, can you post (or PM) a link to some of your stitched portrait panorames with 31 Ltd (compared to 12-24)? That sounds very interesting to me.
Certainly! I have a couple of threads over the last year or so that deal with various aspects of this. So I think that the combination of these should answer your question - and probably a bit more.

A bit of background. About 5 minutes from the house is a location where I can easily park that has a western view, good sunset golden hour potential, with valley lights to a degree. I did not intend this, but wound up experimenting with several ideas:
  • Was using the 31 in a single row stitch. I really liked this, because of the wide view and rather long focal length, I got great sharp high resolution images of the valley lights. Just stunning! Due to the placement of a house near the bottom margin, which is defined by the angle of view from the particular lens, I wanted more room within the composition which led me back to using the 12-24. I tried multi row stitching, however the non level pointing was a problem.
  • Using the 12-24 - which provided me with a "taller" view and thus more margin and framing around the composed subject matter, but also lost the height of the stunning sunsets and cloud cover (when they were available).
  • Went back to the 31 when I acquired the NN3. Gave me the multiple row with the great resolution, however - due to the time that it took from start to finish, I got a great sky, and then great valley lights, but they stitched poorly due to the extreme light condition changes.
  • Across all of this, I was experimenting with bracketing for HDR - trying to catch the large swing in dynamic range, and also wanted the silhouetted look of the dark hillside against the brilliant sky - but including the valley lights (brilliant sky and the lights are about 10-15 minutes apart).
  • Then, with comparing the FOV across the 10-17, 12-24 and 31, it struck me that I could get the look I was going after, by taking a number of bracketed image sets with the 10-17 (thus eliminating the stitching problem), and gaining a pretty stunning combination of brilliant sky and dark valley with lights, all in one. However, the price was that I lost the razor sharp stunning detail and resolution of the 31 stitch (however with a LOT of post processing I could fix the stitch with judicious erasing before stitching so as to remove the artifacts - so far I have been just too lazy). So everything is a compromise.

That is a rather long explanation leading up to the threads below, and put them into somewhat of a context. Also, in each thread, there are good discussions across the great folks who post here.

Here are all 3 lenses stacked up (31 [9 frames], 12-24 [5-6 frames] and 10-17 [1 image]).The 31 multi row stitching problem with an illustration of both the problem and potential.Here is the resulting "look" I was intending to capture. This is the 10-17 multiple bracketed shot, all stacked together (you would never guess that its a fisheye lens).
I have some of the original 31 and 12-24 stitches full size over on my other system down in my office if you want - let me know. The resizing here does not do them justice.

So, you asked "what time was it", and I responded with how to build a watch..... Sorry about that..



09-15-2010, 09:04 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
Nice story, stitching icw tripod and post processing is becoming competition to the ultra wide lenses...
- Hmm, are you trying to tell me I should not go for that Sigma 10-20 mm?

Personally I am not (yet) a fan of post processing, although it is of course an art / hobby on itself, but I just want to see the rough lines of the result through the view finder...
- On top of that ultra-wide and stitching can of course exist next to each other, right?
09-15-2010, 09:30 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
Does it make sense to add a cheap SMC-Pentax FA 28-105 mm F4-5.6?
- Or should I wait for the 18-135 WR becomes available (on used market)?
09-16-2010, 05:02 AM   #22
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
- Personally I am not a fisheye fan, the fact your lens is "almost normal" at 17 mm doesn't convince me either, because the kit lens will do 18 mm even more normal...
I just want to clarify this in case you missed it in Interested Observer's post. 17mm on a fisheye is not 17mm on a rectilinear lens, it's much wider. At 17mm the 10-17mm fisheye has coverage about equal to the the 12-24mm at 12mm.

QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Therefore I am pretty convinced to go for a non-fisheye ultra wide zoom and if "needed" add the fisheye effect during PP. But I might change my opinion, especially if I run into one rather cheap...
The point of a fisheye lens is not just to add distortion. It captures a far wider scene than any ultra-wide lens. Yes, you can add fisheye distortion to an ultra-wide, but you can't capture the 180 degree FOV you can record with the 10-17. The FOV is so incredible that you have to be careful not to capture your own feet in the bottom of the frame. Note too that a fisheye can be de-fished.

I can shoot landscapes, cityscapes, whatever, with my 16-45, then go back to the same scenes with the fisheye and get a whole new view. I love the 10-17 for its quality and its ability to make an extraordinary photo out of an ordinary scene. I also use it as an ultra-wide. If you line up the scene so the horizon is in the center, you can barely tell that a fisheye was used, even at 10mm.

At first I didn't get fisheye either. The photos in this thread showed me that a fisheye is a unique and serious photographic tool, https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33549-fisheye-...ye-photos.html. Then I went shooting with someone who loaned me one, and that sealed the deal. At least have a look at the fisheye thread and the 10-17 before filling out your kit.
09-16-2010, 05:25 AM   #23
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
Main Kit
  • K20D
  • DA 10-17 FE
  • DA 12-24
  • DA 16-45
  • FA 31 Ltd
  • DA 55-300
This is very much like my main kit. Same camera and lenses, except substitute a D FA 100mm macro for the 12-24, and substitute the common man's FA 35 for the rich man's FA 31mm Ltd. I carry my FA 50mm 1.4 and Sigma flash in the main kit, all of which fits nicely, along with ancillaries, in my Pentax Sling bag.

QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
Backup Kit
  • K100D
  • DA 18-55
  • DA 50-200
Mine: K-x, 18-250, DA 40mm Ltd, Raynox DCR-150.
I intend to give the 18-250 to my wife and take back my old Tamron 70-300 or buy a 50-200. She loves the superzoom and it works better on a 6mp camera. The IQ disappoints me sometimes on the 12mp K-x.

09-16-2010, 06:19 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I just want to clarify this in case you missed it in Interested Observer's post. 17mm on a fisheye is not 17mm on a rectilinear lens, it's much wider. At 17mm the 10-17mm fisheye has coverage about equal to the the 12-24mm at 12mm.



The point of a fisheye lens is not just to add distortion. It captures a far wider scene than any ultra-wide lens. Yes, you can add fisheye distortion to an ultra-wide, but you can't capture the 180 degree FOV you can record with the 10-17. The FOV is so incredible that you have to be careful not to capture your own feet in the bottom of the frame. Note too that a fisheye can be de-fished.

I can shoot landscapes, cityscapes, whatever, with my 16-45, then go back to the same scenes with the fisheye and get a whole new view. I love the 10-17 for its quality and its ability to make an extraordinary photo out of an ordinary scene. I also use it as an ultra-wide. If you line up the scene so the horizon is in the center, you can barely tell that a fisheye was used, even at 10mm.

At first I didn't get fisheye either. The photos in this thread showed me that a fisheye is a unique and serious photographic tool, https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33549-fisheye-...ye-photos.html. Then I went shooting with someone who loaned me one, and that sealed the deal. At least have a look at the fisheye thread and the 10-17 before filling out your kit.
Actually I already looked through that thread and enjoyed it a lot, probably close to same amount as I liked the pictures in the ultra-wide non-fisheye thread. So, yes, you are right, I should also consider such fish-eye zoom.

Do you know of some comparison pictures?
- Fisheye picture of fisheye lens
- De-fisheye-ed picture of fisheye lens
- Non-fisheye picture of non-fisheye lens
- Fisheye-ed picture of non-fisheye lens

Preferably at both ends of the zoom range (and if possible also one set in the middle of the range), but of course at least at the widest zoom setting per lens.
09-16-2010, 06:26 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
Oh, Sigma has no zoom fisheye lenses, but three types of primes: Circular, Diagonal and "normal"?!?!?!
- and Tamron no fisheye lens at all...

For Pentax the Fish-eye zoom is even cheaper than the non-fish-eye ultra wide zoom.

Last edited by JoepLX3; 09-16-2010 at 06:44 AM.
09-16-2010, 06:55 AM   #26
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Do you know of some comparison pictures?
- Fisheye picture of fisheye lens
- De-fisheye-ed picture of fisheye lens
- Non-fisheye picture of non-fisheye lens
- Fisheye-ed picture of non-fisheye lens

Preferably at both ends of the zoom range (and if possible also one set in the middle of the range), but of course at least at the widest zoom setting per lens.
Sorry, I don't have time to do these for you because I have a lot of photos I need to process, but here's a good start. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/679474-post3.html
If you search in the forum using "defished" you can find more.
09-16-2010, 06:59 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,998
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Nice story, stitching icw tripod and post processing is becoming competition to the ultra wide lenses...
- Hmm, are you trying to tell me I should not go for that Sigma 10-20 mm?

Personally I am not (yet) a fan of post processing, although it is of course an art / hobby on itself, but I just want to see the rough lines of the result through the view finder...
- On top of that ultra-wide and stitching can of course exist next to each other, right?
On the Sigma - No not at all. You can find many discussions on this board on the question of the DA 12-24 vs the Sigma 10-20 along with the Tamron 10-24. Also Sigma now has a new 8-16. Each lens has its own strength and weakness, as each photographer has their own perspective on what they want an ultra wide angle lens to actually do and look. Some go for the actual widest view possible, others go for low distortion, others go only on price, while others take a combination of these items and more - mix well and come to a decision based on some hybrid criteria. It took me about a year and a half to decide (and save up the funds). I have seen some fantastic images produced from all of the lenses. Actually, all of this comes down to your own personal preference, since you are writing the check. Then upon delivery, you start shooting with it and determine if it does what you intended, you like it or hate it, etc. Its not the opinions of the collective board. The opinions can certainly help and show various outcomes of your decision, and point out aspects that you may not have considered yet.

There are also times, that the board opinions are all wet, when you know what is best for you and your situation.

Post processing - I really do not do a lot of it, just sometimes. Yes, there are times when regardless of the width of the lens, you just need to stitch to tell a story. Alaska for instance. The vistas there are endless - how do you convey this? You can take, say a series of shots - for example 10 shots wide, stitch them maybe 5 to 6 different ways, to highlight different perspectives.

Then, there is wide angle vs fish eye. Two different handling of potentially the same views. You can do ultra wide angle (UWA), UWA stitched, Fish eye, even fish eye stitched. However, it does come down to one comparison with FE (at least for me). There are some times and shots that can only be done with a FE. For instance, things in motion - to capture a 180 degree shot of things in motion where stitching would just not work.

Scroll down to post #359To get the full effect, you would normally need to stitch, even the 12-24 would at best be able to get 60% (both wide and high), So, it would be similar to looking through a straw. You see two completely different pictures of the same scene, taken less than a minute apart.

Also, to some degree you can control where the bend is in terms of the perspective of the image. So, its not for everyone, but I find it certainly does have a place. That is why I say, the 10-17 and 12-24 complement each other.

In terms of de-fishing a fish eye, here is a thread on another site....I was experimenting with what could be done. Maybe that may help answer your questions....


Last edited by interested_observer; 09-16-2010 at 07:06 AM.
09-16-2010, 07:17 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
Does it make sense to add a cheap SMC-Pentax FA 28-105 mm F4-5.6?
- Or should I wait for the 18-135 WR becomes available (on used market)?
it's not a bad lens, I have had one since it came with my PZ-1, but it is a little slow. Ultimately I replaced it with a Tamron 28-75 F2.8

You may also wish to look at the FA-28-80 (power zoom version)

It is a little faster smaller and lighter. Still not a bad lens.

Either one would be a good companion for the intermediate time period, and shoud be relatively in-expensive
09-16-2010, 08:07 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Sorry, I don't have time to do these for you because I have a lot of photos I need to process, but here's a good start. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/679474-post3.html
If you search in the forum using "defished" you can find more.
That is indeed already a good start, thanks!!!
- It seems the fisheye is effectively indeed more wide

QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
On the Sigma - No not at all. ... Actually, all of this comes down to your own personal preference, since you are writing the check. ...

Post processing - I really do not do a lot of it, just sometimes. Yes, there are times when regardless of the width of the lens, you just need to stitch to tell a story. ...

Then, there is wide angle vs fish eye. Two different handling of potentially the same views. You can do ultra wide angle (UWA), UWA stitched, Fish eye, even fish eye stitched. However, it does come down to one comparison with FE (at least for me). There are some times and shots that can only be done with a FE. For instance, things in motion - to capture a 180 degree shot of things in motion where stitching would just not work. ...

Also, to some degree you can control where the bend is in terms of the perspective of the image. So, its not for everyone, but I find it certainly does have a place. That is why I say, the 10-17 and 12-24 complement each other.
Thanks for your extensive reply, that helps a lot!!!
  • I also don't like to depend on post processing too much...
  • I now totally understand that both UWA and FE have their specific applications and via post-processing they can be converter in each direction rather well
    • UWA supports the more traditional look and can be seen as extention to 18-55 range at the wide end, with its own artistic applications (pretty generic)
    • FE supports the ultra, ultra wide application (especially when stitching can't be used, so moving/changing subjects and on top of that I hate carrying tripods...), but then with its very specific artistic fingerprint on it
  • But at least for now I don't what to buy both!!!
    • On top of that, at the long side of the range the difference between UWA and FE seems to be smaller
My initial preference tends to go into the direction of a zoom version of the UWA. Why? Fisheye look can be nice, but not for too many pictures. But if I run into an oppertunity to try out a FE then I will for sure use it.
- Hmm, I am still curious what the difference are between Diagonal, Circular and "Normal" Fisheye... But that should be easy to search on.
09-16-2010, 09:37 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,998
QuoteOriginally posted by JoepLX3 Quote
My initial preference tends to go into the direction of a zoom version of the UWA. Why? Fisheye look can be nice, but not for too many pictures. But if I run into an oppertunity to try out a FE then I will for sure use it.
- Hmm, I am still curious what the difference are between Diagonal, Circular and "Normal" Fisheye... But that should be easy to search on.
Try this for an explanation.
It has taken me about 6 years to assemble this. I never had any inkling that I would - for me, have such an "extensive" kit. The fisheye was one of my first acquisitions, thinking that I could de-fish it and it would be a more general purpose lens then one would think. I like it for different things, have learned how to control the "bend", de-fished to an extent, and wound up learning quite a bit. I have used it to take several of my best images. From that I learned that the overall theme was landscape, and I did not need fast. So, I essentially had a goal, but while I was saving up, I somewhat targeted the next acquisition in terms of what I was learning and the type of landscapes and objects I was aiming for.

You do not have to get everything at once. It takes about 6 months to really get a good feel for the lens. Also, I have purchased several used lenses, and they have turned out great.

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!
camera, da, euro, f3.5-4.5, f8, japan, lens, lenses, mm, pentax, pentax help, photography, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax Bellows II M Set and Auto Extensions Tube Set K (US/CAN) Nick Sold Items 3 08-12-2010 07:07 PM
Mint "complete set" m42 smc takumars becoming harder to find..and expensive. pickles Pentax Film SLR Discussion 40 07-24-2010 08:47 AM
Building Together TrailSeeker Post Your Photos! 2 11-17-2008 08:03 AM
my new computer set up.. (just finished building it) distorted_vision Post Your Photos! 7 05-10-2008 06:25 AM
Old building frankie Post Your Photos! 7 02-25-2007 07:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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