Just bought a new Pentax 10-17 MM fisheye

[lesmore49]

Originally Posted by Gumnut

its a great, fun lens, but with a serious side too
i can agree with the feet in the shot warning i have done that
shadows too, fingers when manually focusing, camera bag straps, the list goes on lol
one thing i have found, instead of moving around, is to not even look through the view finder, with the auto focus and depth of field you are almost gauranteed to get the subject in shot
and crop later
i found that any line that goes through the centre comes out straight
i have some shots i took with it on my site
http://www.johndolphin.net/photos/ca....php?cat_id=61
and a mushroom macro
http://www.johndolphin.net/photos/de...?image_id=5315
so close that the lens was casting a shadow on the mushroom and i had to alter my angle

Gumnut,

wonderful Fisheye pix...I find that I seem to be stretching my photographic abilities with this fisheye...it's a wonderful lens.

[hinioman]

It is always a fun lens to go to museum with my family

@10mm


@10mm


The side distortion adds to the futuristic design of an exhibit hall.

@14mm



And I even tried it on landscape at 17mm

@17mm


@17mm

It is definitely my fun lens to bring my boys to museum and I find it great even in indoor setting, the PF works to advantages in tech museums that purple actually may look cool.

• Pentax DA 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5 fish-eye fun with kids
• Pentax fish-eye on Meteor Attempt

Thanks,
Hin

[mtngal]

Very nicely done! I agree that the 10-17 fish-eye is something special - it's one of my favorite lenses.

[lesmore49]

I've had my Pentax 10-17 Fisheye for about a month or so, now. I really enjoy using it and I find it very versatile.

I've been experimenting with it quite a bit and I'm finding that when I bend my knees (ooohhhh my aged hockey knees ) to go for a relatively low shot that I can change the angle of the camera mit lens attached and it seems that the fisheye goes from two angles of fisheye to a workable very wide angle if I keep the camera / lens on a relatively low...level plane.

Yes there is still some fisheye...but nothing too exceptional or nothing I can't crop out at the extreme edges.

I'm starting to think that the 10-17 is a real two for one.

Now I could be wrong as I've only used the 10-17 FE for about a month. I also don't want to give anyone out there who may be considering a 10-17 FE the wrong impression of the capabilities of this lens.

So to those who have more experience with this lens...am I dreaming in technicolor or can this lens be worked at the angles to give a passable wide angle at settings other than 17 MM ?

[mtclimber]

Super photos! Thanks for posting.

Sarah Joyce

[interested_observer]

Morning Lens-

This is just my opinion after having the 10-17 for about 4 years now and the 12-24 for just over a year, but the 10-17 I think is a wonderful wide angle lens, if you understand what its limitations are and what your are expecting it to do for you. It is much wider than its various focal lengths would suggest, and at 17mm the extreme fish eyed effect is pretty well controlled, however it is still there. So as your images show, for pictures of natural things or man made items with curves (as opposed to rigid straight lines and square corners) its wonderful. In a sense it fools the eye here, because the eye if its not perfectly square (take a look at the museum's outside patio area) its not noticed as much.

Also, you have the option of defishing with utilities such as PTLens and Hugin, etc. Its different, it certainly has a place and its very useful.

There are also times when the shot is very wide, but stitching is not appropriate or impossible. Things in motion, etc - this type of shot is perfect for that situation. Another situation is something LARGE - very LARGE where you can get up close - like a foot away and get the entire object. I did that with a grain combine, and it looked like I was a good 20 feet away, but it took in the entire object and it looked great. Overall, it just lets you do things that normally you would or could not do.

Another application is almost a macro lens to an extent - small animals and the like. Just be careful to not overuse it - having it as your only lens, I do not think would work out too well. That's why - it might sound funny, but paring it with the 12-24 I find to be very appropriate. If you look at the field of view of each lens, they are complementary - 180 to 100 degrees for the FE and 100 to 60 for the rectilinear.

Have fun!!!!!

[lesmore49]

Originally Posted by interested_observer

Morning Lens-

This is just my opinion after having the 10-17 for about 4 years now and the 12-24 for just over a year, but the 10-17 I think is a wonderful wide angle lens, if you understand what its limitations are and what your are expecting it to do for you. It is much wider than its various focal lengths would suggest, and at 17mm the extreme fish eyed effect is pretty well controlled, however it is still there. So as your images show, for pictures of natural things or man made items with curves (as opposed to rigid straight lines and square corners) its wonderful. In a sense it fools the eye here, because the eye if its not perfectly square (take a look at the museum's outside patio area) its not noticed as much.

Also, you have the option of defishing with utilities such as PTLens and Hugin, etc. Its different, it certainly has a place and its very useful.

There are also times when the shot is very wide, but stitching is not appropriate or impossible. Things in motion, etc - this type of shot is perfect for that situation. Another situation is something LARGE - very LARGE where you can get up close - like a foot away and get the entire object. I did that with a grain combine, and it looked like I was a good 20 feet away, but it took in the entire object and it looked great. Overall, it just lets you do things that normally you would or could not do.

Another application is almost a macro lens to an extent - small animals and the like. Just be careful to not overuse it - having it as your only lens, I do not think would work out too well. That's why - it might sound funny, but paring it with the 12-24 I find to be very appropriate. If you look at the field of view of each lens, they are complementary - 180 to 100 degrees for the FE and 100 to 60 for the rectilinear.

Have fun!!!!!

Thanks interested observer for your interesting observations. The more I use it the more I think it seems at times almost a 2.5 D (not quite a 3D) lens.

This past week I went out to a marvelous provincial park close by that is in the Canadian Shield and while lifting the lens and the camera up and down to get the right angle...I noted that if I hold the lens at a particular level and then 'flip' it up and down..just a bit...he lens seems to 'snap' into fisheye outward...wide angle...fisheye inward...it just seems to snap...click as it were into different formats.

I have also experimented with pix and found that if I crop the 'fisheyed' bottom...I end up with almost a panoramic style pix.

It is a lens that I have experienced more frustration with...but also more enjoyment and creativity with than any other lens in my 40 + years of photography...that also includes my medium format stuff.

Les...'Lens'...to some...

[windflower]

Originally Posted by Gumnut

its a great, fun lens, but with a serious side too
i can agree with the feet in the shot warning i have done that
shadows too, fingers when manually focusing, camera bag straps, the list goes on lol
one thing i have found, instead of moving around, is to not even look through the view finder, with the auto focus and depth of field you are almost gauranteed to get the subject in shot
and crop later
i found that any line that goes through the centre comes out straight
i have some shots i took with it on my site
http://www.johndolphin.net/photos/ca....php?cat_id=61
and a mushroom macro
http://www.johndolphin.net/photos/de...?image_id=5315
so close that the lens was casting a shadow on the mushroom and i had to alter my angle

Your photos are great! I am planning to buy the 10-17mm today. Sure wish I had it when I went to Australia last year.