Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-24-2011, 09:54 AM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 535
The Pentax 12-24 is one of the best zooms of any length.

01-24-2011, 10:20 AM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 102
Original Poster
Yes, I'm done assembling my "kit", but I wanted to check if the 16-45mm was a good purchase for me, and I'm glad I checked. The 10-24 is better. I want to know so I can watch for a good deal on whatever are the top 2 lenses I want, but I probably won't buy for a while.

Maybe I'll learn to make do with stitching (and have my next lens be a tele). I read that stitching is really easy in CS3 (and I have it, but haven't experimented yet). But yeah, I don't like if it would distort. I've seen examples without distortion I believe.

Sgtkashim, yeah I was forgetting about moving objects. And that's exactly what I was wondering about, how to get the rotation around the lens. (Though that bracket would be far too expensive, I could try to rotate about the lens.)

I was wanting to take pics of buildings and interiors (rooms) and landscapes (and maybe other) that let you see as much as you would in person standing there without moving your head, or a little more. My 18mm kit lens (which I plan to sell shortly) just doesn't do enough (it's not too bad, but I will only have a 28mm anyway), so I should have realized the 16mm wouldn't LOL. The 10mm or 12mm would probably do as much as I want. When shooting, of course in some cases I can back up to get more in the shot, but in other cases I can't.
01-24-2011, 10:28 AM   #18
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Kitty Quote
Most of the options mentioned seem great but too expensive for me. The only affordable one seems to be the Pentax 10-17 and then it could use defishing in PP most of the time. I'll probably wait and try to get a good deal on a 10-24 someday, as it's not that much more expensive ...
I bought my Tamron 10-24 at the end of December, when the US$100 rebate was still on. THAT made it affordable. Otherwise the least expensive wide lens is the manual Zenitar 16/2.8, under US$200. It's the fastest of the ultrawide lot (other than the DA14/2.8 which costs considerably more) and I use mine much, but a zoom is of course more flexible. The DA10-17 is IMHO best in scenes where you don't need to defish -- keep those horizons and angles centered!

QuoteQuote:
So, for a related question, since I can't afford the wideangle yet (and might buy another lens, like a 75-200, first) -- would it look good to stitch 2 or 3 pics together in CS3? For example, if I was trying to shoot that same Century21 building with my 28-75mm lens. Would my end result be nearly the same, better, worse than shooting at 10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm? I am guessing I'd get the other kind of distortion which is sort of like reverse of fisheye distortion? Especially the higher number I am using so shooting at 28mm is worse than if I had a 24mm or 17mm to shoot with?
1) Stitching: I've not used CS3 but the free program AUTOSTITCH handles stitchups quite well -- just point it to a folder and it'll stitch everything it can, regardless of camera orientation. Or, select the pictures to stitch. I'll sometimes stitch a patchwork of B&W and color frames.

2) Distortion: Fisheyes suffer barrel distortion, and the reverse of that is pincushion distortion. I've not seen that much in wide lenses, which tend to go the barrel route. Both are easily fixed in most modern editors. And 28mm is a good focal length for stitchups, with less edge distortion than shorter lenses.

3) Buildings: Is your Century21 problem where you shoot the center of the building and the ends diminish in the distance? The trick there is to take parallel 28mm shots from across the street, keeping the lens perpendicular to the building as you move the camera 20-30 feet or whatever between shots.
01-24-2011, 10:51 AM   #19
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 102
Original Poster
There's the 17mm Tokina that's not as fast that's really cheap (if one could be found), but 17mm doesn't seem wide enough on APS-C Still, maybe I should get a cheap prime at 17mm or I believe there's a very cheap 19mm too, then stitch when I need it even wider.

Cool about stitching B&W and color together.

Shooting parallel for stitching... hm... I guess that is more of what I want, to avoid distortion.

01-24-2011, 06:10 PM   #20
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Kitty Quote
There's the 17mm Tokina that's not as fast that's really cheap (if one could be found), but 17mm doesn't seem wide enough on APS-C Still, maybe I should get a cheap prime at 17mm or I believe there's a very cheap 19mm too, then stitch when I need it even wider.
Nope, a 17mm rectilinear ain't very wide on APS-C. I see one PK Tokina 17/3.5 on eBay right now, but with shipping it'll cost more than a Zenitar 16/2.8 which when defished is equivalent to a 12mm rectilinear. You'd get nearly the effect of that Tokina with just an 18-55 kit lens. Other than what I listed above, my next-widest lens is a Super-Lentar (Tokina, often badged as Vivitar, Soligor, etc) 21/3.8 that's a great street lwns when stopped-down to f/11 and prefocused to 2m for DOF from 1m to infinity. But it ain't real wide on APS-C... And ALL wides and ultrawides distort at the edges. That's just optical reality.

QuoteQuote:
Cool about stitching B&W and color together.
It can be subtle or glaring or anything in-between. And there's a trick I do with the PHOTOSTITCH program that came with Canon printers/copiers: take a series of portraits shot with an framed background, tell PHOTOSTITCH that they're to be built into a 360 degree panorama, and it will create a seamless strip of those faces. AUTOSTITCH does a better job of matching edges, and blending B&W with color, but PHOTOSTITCH offers more control over placing frames into a pano or matrix.

QuoteQuote:
Shooting parallel for stitching... hm... I guess that is more of what I want, to avoid distortion.
When you shoot an extensive flat surface, the ends are ALWAYS distorted. Some stitchwarez try to build perspective into your assemblage. PHOTOSTITCH has a specific option for joining parallel shots. Let's say I scan a long map in sections. Stitchwarez thinking I used a camera would shrink the ends down to vanishing points. PHOTOSTITCH will just assemble them into an undistorted rectangle.
01-24-2011, 06:45 PM   #21
Senior Member
mojoe_24's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 214
How much do fisheyes go for? I'd love to have a cheap fisheye lens for fun.


Do you guys have examples of panos with BW and color?
01-24-2011, 08:46 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,817
QuoteOriginally posted by mojoe_24 Quote
How much do fisheyes go for? I'd love to have a cheap fisheye lens for fun.
There are cheap add-on lenses that aren't very sharp.

Back in the good old days, you could get a Zenitar 16mm f2.8 for $125, straight from the Ukraine, with a manual in Cyrillic. Now they're $200 or so. It is a basic K mount, so you have to use the green button to meter. The factory did not always adjust them for infinity focus, but it's not hard to do yourself. I used one for a year or so and I liked it. The three biggest problems: Since it was designed for film, it's not very fishy on an APS-C sensor. It doesn't focus that close, so it's hard to get this kind of photo:



The lens I have is a Sigma 16mm f2.8 Filtermatic. It's pretty close to the Zenitar, except with a KA mount and closer focus. There are a handful of other film fisheyes, such as Takumar 17mm f4 and Pentax-A 16mm f2.8, but you don't see them often at cheap prices.

This Bower is a recent option, built by Samyang. Is $350 considered cheap? At least you get the full fisheye effect, in a small package.

You can often find the Pentax DA 10-17mm fisheye zoom for sale used, because people don't like it or get tired of it.
01-24-2011, 10:05 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by mojoe_24 Quote
How much do fisheyes go for? I'd love to have a cheap fisheye lens for fun.


Do you guys have examples of panos with BW and color?
I've been testing and shopping for a fisheye for a couple of months now, and I've pretty well settled on a Bower/Samyang/etc. in either 8mm or 10mm. They can be had for between $300 and $350, which is half the price of a Pentax or Sigma to cover that range.
Lenses are not toys with me, but practical invenstments. I won't have a lot of practical use for a fisheye, and everything I've read or seen from the little-known lenses is very good. I even read and saw examples of a test of the Bower against Nikon's very expensive fisheye, and the Bower came out better. (No, I don't remember the link--I've been all over the place.)
The Bower is MF only, which doesn't bother me in the least, because I use MF most of the time anyway, and don't let it scare you, because the DOF is so wide, you don't need any experience with MF in the mid apature ranges where these lenses seem best.

01-25-2011, 10:12 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,817
Ken Rockwell's test of the Pro-Optic compares it to the Nikon. There's a link in post #4 of this thread.

MF is not a big deal. That's good because often, the details in the viewfinder are really tiny and hard to see for exact sharpness.

Lenses are kind of toys for me.
01-25-2011, 10:49 AM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
Ken Rockwell's test of the Pro-Optic compares it to the Nikon. There's a link in post #4 of this thread.

MF is not a big deal. That's good because often, the details in the viewfinder are really tiny and hard to see for exact sharpness.

Lenses are kind of toys for me.
Yes, that's probably the one I was referring to. Thought it was LensPro. Doesn't matter: same lens, different names.
With very wide lenses, the DOF is so wide, that most people just set the focal length at about three feet (according to the marks on the lens) and leave it there. What I prefer is to twist it to (or past) infinity, then back up slowly until the foreground pops into focus. With such lenses, you barely have to turn the focus ring to accomplish this.
01-25-2011, 08:01 PM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oklahoma USA
Posts: 1,476
Neither my k100 or k200 can focus my 10-20mm sigma particularly well at the wide end (they do better at the longer length settings, despite having less light to work with.) However, when using manual focus you do have to be very careful not to nudge the focus ring, because it's easy to get the focus far eough off to show in a 100% crop, but not far enough off to notice in the viewfinder. (unless you're looking very carefully and have a brightly lit scene.)

Paul
01-26-2011, 04:45 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 834
QuoteOriginally posted by Kitty Quote
<snip>I was wanting to take pics of buildings and interiors (rooms) and landscapes (and maybe other) that let you see as much as you would in person standing there without moving your head, or a little more.
<snip>
AFAIK that's what a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is meant to give - approximately the same angle of view as the human eye. I believe that on a Pentax D-SLR a 35mm lens does the same thing.
01-26-2011, 04:56 PM   #28
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,442
QuoteQuote:
AFAIK that's what a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is meant to give - approximately the same angle of view as the human eye. I believe that on a Pentax D-SLR a 35mm lens does the same thing.
Nope, that is what one eye sees. Two eyes gives a wider view. You will need to get down to 12mm or whatever has about a 90 degree angle of view. (You can do the simple test by holding your arms out, each at 45 degrees).
02-01-2011, 05:22 PM   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 61
Also, kitty said nothing about moving the eyes; I can probably see at least 150 degrees side to side if I'm allowed to dart my eyes around...
02-02-2011, 02:18 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 834
But both eyes tend to look at the same thing at the same time, so the central field of vision isn't much increased with two eyes. Peripheral vision is of course.
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!
16mm, camera, fisheye, lens, pentax help, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
pentax fisheyes... insulinguy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 10-07-2009 10:13 AM
What Fisheyes are available to K10? gozerthegozarian Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 10-21-2008 01:28 PM
fisheyes make you seasick? nostatic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 02-21-2008 07:16 PM
Fisheyes AV82GOLF Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 10-19-2007 12:31 PM
Fisheyes - Zenitar vs Pentax 10-17? Groucho Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 07-05-2007 06:03 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM. | 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