Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-27-2014, 11:51 PM   #16
Pentaxian
schnitzer79's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,095
QuoteOriginally posted by cxdoo Quote
That Curium photo came out really nice, considering the difficulty of the location. I'd say CP and a windy day are a must (to get rid of glare and dust/mist). Also, the dynamic range and saturation are great; was there much PP (or HDR) involved?
thanks man.no HDR in any one of the pics. I did do a fair bit of PP however . not a big fan of the HDR look, maybe its because i cant get the hang of it properly. I like it when its really subtle, otherwise it looks more like a painting instead of a picture.

05-01-2014, 06:03 AM   #17
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by schnitzer79 Quote
i believe the sigma 10mm is 1.5-2 times more expensive than the pentax 10-17. if you are between those 2 i'd go with the pentax not only for the price but for its versatility. The sigma might be faster focusing but IQ difference is insignificant between the two. I was in the same boat as you but funds were limited and ended up with the samyang 8mm not too long ago. you also have that option if you want something cheaper. its a great lens in my opinion. heres some of my shots i took recently :
I can get the Pentax 10-17 for AUD $529 free postage, and Sigma 10mm 2.8 for $579 with free postage from the same online store - Ebay DCexpert in Australia. I bought my 10-20mm from them, it arrived two days later.

There's a $50 difference - what would you do ?
05-01-2014, 06:48 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
ivanvernon's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Medina, OH
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,068
Pentax vs Sigma

I have the Pentax but not the Sigma, so cannot compare the two. However, I will say a few words in favor of the Pentax. I have found it to be sharp and quite versatile. You get both a fisheye with its interesting effects as well as a moderately good wide angle. If you hold the lens right at the 17 mm end, you can almost lose any distortion and use it as a true wide angle, but not of course as good as a true wide angle like say the 21 limited.
05-01-2014, 07:24 AM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,959
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
I also had a concern about CA's at the corners - any thoughts ?
The DA 10-17 is the worst fringing lens I have ever used. It may be the worst such lens currently available. Indeed, when it comes to measurable numerical specs, the DA 10-17 isn't at all impressive, as the photozone tests of the Tokina version demonstrate. The lens was designed by Jun Hirakawa (who also designed the FA 43 and FA 77), who once claimed he designed lenses to achieve aesthetic goals, rather than numerical spec targets. The DA 10-17 is the preeminent example of a lens that performs poorly on tests but delivers in terms of the aesthetics of human perception. Yes, it fringes quite a bit; but the fringes usually clean pretty easy in post. And yes, other fisheye lenses, like the sigma, are sharper. But the DA 10-17 is sharp enough and produces stunning images. And it has the best flare control of any zoom lens I've ever used.







05-01-2014, 07:27 AM   #20
Pentaxian
schnitzer79's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,095
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
I can get the Pentax 10-17 for AUD $529 free postage, and Sigma 10mm 2.8 for $579 with free postage from the same online store - Ebay DCexpert in Australia. I bought my 10-20mm from them, it arrived two days later.

There's a $50 difference - what would you do ?
50 bucks ain't nothing.if u haven't got anything to cover you at the 17mm go for the Pentax,that way you have a true wide angle as well as a fish eye, otherwise go for the sigma. Especially if u plan to use it a lot in low light.the quicker AF and extra stop will come in handy
05-01-2014, 07:36 AM   #21
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,700
nice shots everyone!
I've used the DA10-17 for years and not nearly as much lately...gotta put it in the bag again after being inspired here.

last one I took was in a wine cave in Napa:


those two corridors are at 90 degree angles

Last edited by mikeSF; 05-01-2014 at 12:17 PM.
05-02-2014, 01:47 AM   #22
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
The DA 10-17 is the worst fringing lens I have ever used. It may be the worst such lens currently available. Indeed, when it comes to measurable numerical specs, the DA 10-17 isn't at all impressive, as the photozone tests of the Tokina version demonstrate. The lens was designed by Jun Hirakawa (who also designed the FA 43 and FA 77), who once claimed he designed lenses to achieve aesthetic goals, rather than numerical spec targets. The DA 10-17 is the preeminent example of a lens that performs poorly on tests but delivers in terms of the aesthetics of human perception. Yes, it fringes quite a bit; but the fringes usually clean pretty easy in post. And yes, other fisheye lenses, like the sigma, are sharper. But the DA 10-17 is sharp enough and produces stunning images. And it has the best flare control of any zoom lens I've ever used.
Thanks Greg, I did not know that about the lens. You described some of things which I thought I could see in images I've seen on Flickr and this forum.
05-05-2014, 07:19 AM   #23
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,405
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
You described some of things which I thought I could see in images I've seen on Flickr and this forum.
The DA10-17 is not that bad - as a fisheye. But the Samyang 8mm is a better fisheye. The problem is when you try using the DA10-17 on the 17mm end. It is not all that sharp and there is a fair amount of fringing and distortion. Actually the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm.

05-06-2014, 12:16 AM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
The DA10-17 is not that bad - as a fisheye. But the Samyang 8mm is a better fisheye. The problem is when you try using the DA10-17 on the 17mm end. It is not all that sharp and there is a fair amount of fringing and distortion. Actually the kit DA18-55 is better at 18mm than the DA10-17 at 17mm.
It's ironic, I suppose. I shoot with primes more often. I generally don't need a zoom.

But when it comes to fisheye, I suddenly think the zoom of the DA10-17 is a huge advantage. I guess that's because being able to control the amount of fisheye distortion is a huge part of the process - you're not just changing the angle of view.

I suppose it's also because (to me) the concept of wanting the technically sharpest image when you have all that fisheye distortion seems absurd (or at least unnecessary). I'm sure there's a use case (there nearly always is), but I just don't see it.
05-06-2014, 01:23 AM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
I love the DA 10-17mm because of its versatility. The occasions on which we can use fisheyes are sparse. However, the focal range of the DA causes it to be used much more often. Then there's the very close focussing distance, which is another unique feature amongst fisheye lenses. Getting very close to your subject plus the fisheye effect creates some very special images. Funny that it is never mentioned.

So, I don't really see how that little extra light and extra sharpness of the Sigma wheigh up against that. But everybodies preferences are different 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!
10-17mm, 10-17mm vs sigma, 10mm, add-on, camera, fisheye, gps, lens, lenses, pentax, pentax 10-17mm vs, pentax help, photography, pm, post, review, samyang, sensor, sigma, thanks, vs sigma 10mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do Pentax 10-17mm, Sigma 10-20, and Tamron 10-24 have a physical aperture control? torontoem4o Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 11-29-2013 10:04 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 10mm f. 2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye lens giofi Sold Items 8 11-22-2013 08:46 AM
17mm vs 18mm (Tamron vs Sigma f/2.8 zooms) Eruditass Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 09-22-2010 11:05 AM
Sigma 15mm vs Zenitar vs Pentax 10-17mm HogRider Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-29-2007 12:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:24 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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