| Author: | | New Member Registered: April, 2017 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 15
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 19, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | SIZE! WEIGHT! Close focusing distance. | | Cons: | Lens cap doesn't "click" on - could be easily lost, and "A" mode would be nice | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 4
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: K1
| |
What a gem of a lens, paired with my K1! I just recently acquired it on Ebay for a bit more than I usually "toss on a whim" ($350) but I'm so glad I did - it is in mint condition and is so delightfully light and compact - almost a "pancake" lens! I did some quick on-tripod lens tests at f11 and found optical performance to be excellent, even compared with modern Rokinon 12mm fisheye (Roki has the edge, but at much bigger size/weight penalty) and/or Pentax FA17-35 fisheye zoom. Once slightly away from image center, the prime significantly outperforms the FA zoom at 17mm, which is why I'd carry that zoom anyway. This 17mm prime will henceforth be "in the bag" for all photo outings/travel/hiking where weight/size is of major concern. Another big advantage for the Pentax 17mm prime over the Pentax FA17-35 zoom is in much closer close focus distance which is very nice for landscape scenes with an object almost "at the lens" (leaf, rock, creature) and sweeping depth.
| | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: April, 2011 Location: Germany Posts: 238
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 7, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $280.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | extrem compact for FF & excelent image quality | | Cons: | no A-Mode | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: K1
| |
I used the DA10-17 for quite a time on the K1 at the long end and then got the old Fisheye-Takumar (M42) which was nice due its compact size. Meanwhile I had the opportunity to get a very good condition K17/4 which is same (compact) size.
Big advantage of the K-Version is a better quality and less flares by SMC coating. The color impression of the K-Version I like much more.
Further the integrated filters are better protected against unintended movement of the filter ring - with the old version I sometimes ruined some shots by missadjust filter setting and local vignetting my the filters.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: November, 2012 Location: Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany Posts: 6,765
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 3, 2019 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | tiny, built-in filters, easy to use | | Cons: | lens cap | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-1 mII
| |
I've had this lens for several years now. I bought it to use on my Sony APS-C camera with an adapter to use as a wide angle lens. This, and the M20mm f/4, were the two lenses that drove me to experiment with film. Why? Because there was no full-frame camera available in 2014 (or so) and I really wanted to try it on a full-frame unit. So, after I bought a manual film body and some B/W film, the K17 was the first lens I tried.
The lens is 17mm and shows a 180 degree diagonal field of view. The lens is a fisheye, which means it's not corrected for linear distortion. This means there will be curved lines around the center point. That's the point of a fisheye, and allows for some fantastically creative images.
This lens was produced from 1975 and ceased in 1985. The lens is compact, nearly qualifies as a pancake, and has a built-in hood. There are no filter threads on the front, so the metal lens cap stays on with friction. Because this method isn't exactly reliable, I have reinforced the inside of the lens cap with tape to provide a surface that actually provides friction.
The lens is 295g (about a half-pound) but feels lighter. It's tiny, handles excellently, and is made of metal except for the rubber grip. The lens has built-in filters, which aren't all that useful for digital, but might be for film. Two of them are color filters (yellow and orange) for use on black and white film.
Here's a great example of the super-wide field of view with some of the fish-eye distortion that comes along with it. We were waiting on a burrito and a chile relleno in this small tacqueria in Springdale when I caught this shot. Aperture control doesn't do much for compressing depth of field on super-wide lenses, unless you have foreground subjects that are very close, but it does make a difference in sharpness sometimes. This was shot at f/8 (I think).
I balanced this speaker on top of a light pole, and got within a couple of inches to get this shot. One of the best uses of wide angles is to emphasize the main subject in its environment. Unfortunately, not much environment to show off here, but I was really only looking for the close-up effect and the curved lines on the bottom. Also, I tried to add interest to the dead space above the speaker by amplifying the contrast of the shadows on the wall.
The field of view is 180 diagonally across the frame, but not horizontally. It's very wide, as you can see i got most of my relatively small living room. One of the things to always keep in mind when shooting any wide angle is exposure. Do you want to expose for the shadows and intentionally blow the highlights, or do you want to expose for the highlights and try and rescue the shadows in post-processing? I tried for the latter here, but still blew out some highlights. Metering with manual lenses always involves some guesswork, but that's part of the fun, isn't it?
So, there you go, the K17 Fisheye lens, a Carter/Reagan era lens that still works fine on digital.
| | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2016 Location: lake constance Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 22, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharp, best mechanics, small, legendary | | Cons: | out of production | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: ME Super, MX, Sony A7
| |
A typical K lens with all the perfect properties you know about them. Therefore I keep my statement short.
Its always by my side, when I am on my holidays in the alps.
 | | | | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2013 Location: NE England Posts: 13
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 27, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Build,size,colour rendition. | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: KP, SFXn
| |
After reading the user reviews I was very keen to try and get hold of this lens. I finally tracked one down at the excellent Ffordes Photographic in Beauly. My copy has some cosmetic marking to the front coating, but this does not seem to impact on the image. It's a jewel of a lump; weighty and very nice to operate. As others have said, it's not an everyday lens and the full wide angle is a little lost on smaller sensors, but I love it. It seems to be quite scarce. The dealers that I bought it from had a copy of the earlier M42 mount version; that too was sold not long after. If you see one for a reasonable price get it! Highly recommend 
KP with fisheye 17mm
Double rainbow with KP/17mm
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2018 Location: Paris Posts: 8
7 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 1, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Amazing build ans size, handling ,FOV on k1, optics | | Cons: | rare, Fov not so amazing on apsc | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K1
| |
Update April 2018
Using this beauty more and more. Such fun and ease of use, amazing FOV for insides pics and good Optics
2 pics HANDHELD at 1/6 sec !!!!! iso 800 and 1600. Imagine on a steady tripod ISO 100... :
__________________________________________________________
This tiny little sweety is gorgeous . Mine is almost mint condition.
Amazing FOV/DOF, pentax colors
my dfa 28-105 at 28 seems a long tele , pics at F.8 just to compare :
(Direct jpeg from camera, no pp)
FOV Indoor
FOV outdoor flat day light 
and the size !!!! ( on par with a FA 50mm 1,7) :
Just lovely lens, a kind of DA 15 limited for K1
(above shot with a Lester A Dine macro 105mm (=Kiron 105 2.8 etc...) at F.2.8+ISO 1600. This is also a beast of a lens.)
Great optics on k1. At least as good my Da 12/24 on k5 but with less ac.
I put 10 everywhere  (for what it is :UWA supercharge details /180º/qty of pixel information it has to record+very few ac +size+handling+price+build,such pleasant using it and fun)
Another smile lens with my fa77, The look ans mechanical build is such exceptional
The handling is a dream :
Focusing is the easiest ( af useless, infinity begins at above 1.1m distance lol)
You can shoot at half sec time exposure handheld ! Thanks K1 SR ans iso for low light
You can have a real fisheye 180º with lot distorsion and curiously have not so much and landscape view if good composition
I recommend this gem if you can find one, even though it s not an every day use lens.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: April, 2009 Location: Norway Posts: 668
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 29, 2017 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Size, weight, ease of use, colors, sharpness, field of view, etc. | | Cons: | Exposed front element (difficult to avoid with such a lens). | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K1
| |
I bought this lens at a good price from a Canon user (who had removed the aperture lever). Nonetheless it functions properly on the K1. My copy is version 2.
Every time I use this lens on the K1, I'm impressed by the results. In my opinion, it is a great companion to the K1 and highly recommended.
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: September, 2014 Location: Nelson Posts: 266
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 16, 2015 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Classic Pentax Prime | | Cons: | Vulnerable front element. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K100DS
| |
Originally bought mine back in 1986, used mostly on an MX during my 35mm SLR days.
This lens was part of the reason I stuck with Pentax for a DSLR, I had a number of good legacy primes that I wanted to recycle, this one at the top of the pile.
Colour, contrast, sharpness -all there, all excellent. Shame to lose the 180 degree FOV that the lens provided on 35mm film, but it's still plenty wide. I've been playing around with some 'de-fisheye' options out of curiousity and found that Raw Therapee handles this superbly -there's a little loss of FOV but nothing else seems to suffer. The two attached shots show pre and post correction.
Currently hunting for a Pentax 10-17 but this'll do in the meantime
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: May, 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Posts: 3,897
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 29, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | excellent color & contrast; close focus; small | | Cons: | distortion, green-button metering only | |
This little lens is my DA15 remedy as my wallet won't allow any lenses in the Limted's price range for a while - and now I don't need it!  Field of view edge-to-edge is between 14 and 15mm as tested against those DA primes. Color and contrast match up great against any lens I've used since 1975 (which is about when this was made). Mine is marked 1:4/17 - I have also owned the '1:4 17' version and both performed really well. This one is in slightly better condition overall. Another 9.5 on my scale 
Close focus is great fun and really makes items stand out from the background, and bokeh in those conditions is neither incredible nor indifferent.
17 vs. DA14 field -
closeup showing bokeh -
distortion shows well in closeups of straight lines!
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: July, 2010 Location: Cardiff, UK Posts: 65
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 25, 2012 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Everything | | Cons: | Nothing | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K20D/K200D/MX/ME Super?KM [film]
| |
As Bojidar Dimitrov’s wonderfully informative K Mount website reveals, there are two versions of this lens. Version 1 was in production 1975-1977 and version 2 1977-1985. You can tell the difference between them easily enough. The front of version 1 has ‘1:4/17’ written on it, version two has ‘1:4 17mm’ on it. The metal plate affixed to the rear element is also slightly different (on version 2 it is attached by what looks to be two small rivets). The overall grading I give to this lens is for version 2. I have owned two copies of each of these over the years, which must mean I like this lens – and I now possess only one copy. In my experience, the two versions offer slight differences in image quality. Both have excellent colour and contrast. Version 2, however, is perhaps sharper at all apertures. Both my copies of version 1 offered rather hazy softness at f4, with stopping down to f8 usually necessary to get reasonable detail on digital. This is not to say that the image quality was not very good – it was superior to the detail revealed by the kit lens at 18mm. Both copies of version 2 I've had have been sharper, however - very sharp wide-open and even sharper stopped down. Version 2 also seems to exhibit less susceptibility to flare, which may possibly explain why it exists: the later one was intended to be an improvement over the earlier. On film such differences do not amount to much at all, but on digital they become more noticeable. Whichever copy you end up owning, this must count as one of the finest Pentax lenses ever made. It is very compact indeed. Its build-quality is superb. Its field of view on full-frame is jaw-dropping when encountered through the detailed, luminous and large viewfinder screens on film cameras such as a Pentax MX or ME Super (although both offer only a 92% view). On current digital crop the 17mm still remains in the ultra-wide category. It is perhaps slightly less wide than the DA10-17mm fisheye at 17mm, but there is nothing much in it and the 17mm f4 is a fraction of the size; it is also significantly wider than the 18mm kit lens and noticeably wider than the 16mm end of the DA16-45. There is some fisheye effect even on digital, but that is easily straightened out in post-processing if needs be. It has built-in filters, which is useful. Some people have expressed worries about the vulnerability of the exposed but actually quite small front element. This is inevitable with a fisheye, but I have never heard of anyone actually damaging the front element – and the metal lens cap reflects the standard of construction of the lens itself by providing solid protection. Using this lens is always a pleasure.
| | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2011 Posts: 2
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 27, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | size, quality, surprisingly useful | | Cons: | only f4 | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 10
Value: 9
| |
I bought this lens as a wide angle to use on digital. I like it so much I thought Id better add a review.
As stated above build quality is great and mine is in excellent condition.
On APSC the fish-eye is mild but can be used to good effect.
I havent had any flare problems, IQ is good and no CA problems. It is a bit soft at f4 but very sharp at f8. I tend to leave it at f8 and focus by just estimating distance and using the calibrations on the focus ring. This is quick and simple.
Because it is very small, it is easy to include and I find it more useful than you might expect.
Mostly I like this lens because of the way it captures landscapes. A couple of quick images below:
 | | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2009 Location: Piatra Neamt Posts: 16 | | Review Date: September 22, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | very fun to use, compact and light, built-in filters | | Cons: | not an f/2.8, but that's obvious | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
I bought this lens to use on a film camera. It was the first time I've ever used a fish-eye, and wow, was I surprised! It's extremely wide on film, and the perspective is absolutely unique! I've spent the first day with it taking portraits of friends (on film), and the results are absolutely hilarious! When I showed the pictures to my friends, we were rolling on the floor laughing.  (I would upload some samples, but they'd probably kill me if I did)
At f/4, the image in the viewfinder is a bit darker than what I was used to, but you can still achieve focus for indoor shots. The focusing mechanism is nice and smooth, with a short throw, but that's enough for this focal length.
I haven't really stress-tested the lens to check sharpness and aberrations at all apertures. I've only shot around f/8 so far, and images come out nice and crisp. I gave it a 9 for sharpness (although I haven't tested it at f/4).
For aberrations, you get a bit of flaring, if the sun is in the picture, but I guess that's normal.
Bokeh? It's a fish-eye. You probably don't buy this for bokeh, but you can blur the background, as long as the foreground is very close (otherwise, why put a focus ring on it in the first place?)
Handling is typical of old lenses (which means very good), just be careful about the exposed front element. It's also very small (unlike the Samyang 8mm fish-eye for cropped sensors), so it's easy to carry around.
I haven't used this lens much on digital.On my K20D, the FOV in the viewfinder is wider than that of the 18-55 @ 18mm, and you can see the barrel distortion typical of a fisheye. If that is what you want, then you should be happy, the image quality is great.
Here's also a low-resolution scan of what it can give on film:
This low-res scan doesn't do it justice, but the original 20x30cm print looks magnificent! Sure, you can see a bit of flare, but hey, the freakin' sun was in the frame!
In conclusion: for film, this lens is excellent! I don't think I'll ever sell it, it's just so fun to use!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: April, 2009 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,048
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 7, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Small Size, well built. | | Cons: | Very exposed front element, difficult to be sure of focus | |
I bought this lens on e-bay UK about a year ago. I was in two minds about purchasing it as I was not sure how the FishEye would work out for me as nearly always I end up in squishy places with no room to maneuver.
I dislike changing lenses in the field and generally just place a lens on the K200D for the day and that's it. Of course the inevitable happened and I was caught in a 18th century town in Germany where my M28 was just not wide enough and I did not have my Sigma 10/20 with me so on went the FishEye. I was expecting a total disaster with curved straight lines but actually they weren't that bad and I can live with the results. If you have a horizontal straight line in the scene it's going to curve up or down if it's not dead centre on the lens.
Manual focusing on cameras not designed for it can be a little tricky, folk law says that with ultra wide angles everything will be in focus pretty much from the camera to infinity. Well the confirm focus lamp can blink away but to be sure and to get the best out of this lens I think you need to stop down two stops or so. Compared to the Sigma 10-20 I don't think it's quite as sharp as the Sigma but that's just an on-screen comparison, no detailed test, it is however, a lot easier to carry around.
In theory with an APS-C sensor having a crop factor of 1.5 this 17mm lens should work out around 25.5mm but it doesn't. Mounting my K200d on a tripod with the 17mm attached I noted it's field of view in my living room, exchanging this for the Sigma 10-20 and zooming until it covered the same field of view, it came in around a shade more than 14mm according to the scale on the Sigma.
Will I get rid of this lens - NO
| | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: London UK Posts: 1
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 27, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | compact size, subtle fisheye (on APS-C) | | Cons: | vulnerable front element | |
I finally bought one of these on eBay after stalling many times (telling myself I would only find very limited use for it, being a fisheye). I was tempted by the bargain price and knowing I could always resell it if disappointed.
News flash: I'm definitely not reselling. It's great. I wish I got one earlier. On APS-C crop format the fisheye effect can be almost unnoticeable with careful composition, and can really add something in dramatic wide perspectives. Just a little soft wide open but by f8 its pin sharp and almost everything is in focus, I have got into the habit of leaving it set on the hyperfocal marks (orange) and just shooting. Not something I'd do with any other lens I own.
Others have commented on the flare issue but its not been noticeable to me so far, I did 'stress test' with a few 'into-the-sun' shots and didn't have a problem.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2009 Location: Spring Green, WI Posts: 926
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 18, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $300.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | build quality, optical quality, color rendition, built-in filters | | Cons: | no easy way to protect front element | |
I took the "glass lasts, bodies come and go" advice seriously, and made this lens my first Pentax purchase (used, from a forum member)--I bought it before I ordered my K-7, even.
What others have said regarding this lens is true. It's very good, and it's not particularly easy to find, so it's pretty much a keeper.
What I really like about the K 17/4 is its color rendition and its versatility. On the K-7, if used carefully, it can yield fairly wide-angle images with only moderate hints of its rectilinear fisheye nature. Mounted on my MX, its true essence is revealed: a wide view with some very interesting effects.
Those looking for a full-on fisheye would be disappointed with this lens, even on a film body. But if you're looking for something that can handle landscape photography and give you some interesting perspectives, the K 17/4 might be just what you're looking for.
It's hard for me to think of this lens's moderate distortion as a negative, though: after all, it's a rectilinear fisheye. To count that as a con seems akin to complaining that a more normal lens doesn't yield a fish-eye view, or that an M 50/1.4 isn't a 1:1 macro. It is what it is.
As others have noted, its build quality is very high. The only negative with this lens is that the front element is open to everything out there. (I've thought of possible ways to protect it with a clear filter, but haven't actually tried any of them. If the lens were on my K-7 every day, I might very well put my ideas into action, but . . . well, I just try to be extra careful instead.)
Again, this lens isn't for everyone, but it has its niche, and it fills that niche extremely well.
| | |
;)
;)
