Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:39 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

As I was posting these, I have been looking - while converting to JPG and getting the file sizes down to posting limits. The 10-17 FE takes in so much area, and thus light, it really does need to be stopped down more than what the camera automatically does. This is quite evident in the last 2, on the way to Grand Junction, CO. The colors of the sky and rock formation from the 16-45 are accurate (plus I was using the hood - however no hood on the FE). The 10-17 is somewhat washed out. I probably need to play with that some (in the RAW format). The tree limb hanging down on the right hand side of the 10-17 image is the same tree limb hanging down on the left hand side of the 16-45 image, so I am probably moved about 30 feet (and shot an additional 24 images) between these two examples.

My wife was eager to get back driving to make our destination on time. I really had not had a chance to go back and actually compare these until now.

This lens is a real learning experience in its use and applications.

If anyone would want to try their defishing software or play (coloring/lighting/????) around with the last 2 images, I would be willing to supply the original RAW files.
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 7:14 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Here is the last one. Its a close up, probably 4.5 to 5 inches away from the flower using the 10-17 at 10mm f5.6. The more I am looking at these images, the more it needs to be stopped down......

One of the things, I see about this lens is the control of depth of field of the image. At f5.6 its pretty thin.
Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 7:48 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

On this last one, I had taken a bracketed set of 3 (+/- 2 f stops) to try to do some HDR. As indicated before the original was f 5.6. Anyway, I used the trial version of Protomatrix Pro - averaging and I had to manual align. I also cropped to remove the background, that really did not add anything.

What I was trying to do here was to look at the effect of stopping down the lens and doing some HDR to see how it turned out. Oh - yes, its all hand held.

---- well, I thought I cropped it.....


Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 10:37 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Interesting lens, but I can see how it would not be everyone's "cup of tea." Thanks for posting the pictures, which are fascinating and very well done.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 4:41 AM   #15
Member
 
Stev1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Default

Wow! thanks for posting your photo's and thoughts, some interesting results.

As you say, the Fisheye needs some experience to get the best out of it and it looks like you've had fun playing with it - I particularly like the low angle shots.

My interest is in landscapes and my existing lenses don't quite go wide enough - do I go for a fixed focal length say the 14mm or opt for a zoom lens in the wide angle range. The 12-24 (pentax or sigma) rectilinear's look good but I think the 10-17 might be fun to have a play with for a while.

As you mention there is software to straighten up the image (good for architectural work) would be interesting to see results if anyone has had experience doing this?

Thanks again for the posts.

Steve
Stev1e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 4:40 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

i think FEs are as a lot of things. it's a black/white world. me?? i just don't like the distortion altho they do clean up nice.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2007, 9:20 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

Dunno about the Pentax 10-17...but sure like your MGB.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2007, 1:37 PM   #18
TC3
Senior Member
 
TC3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,169
Default

Here are some links to posts i have made showing some pics with the FE...hope they encourage you

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=23289048



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=23040036

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=22736743

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=21652855
TC3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2007, 11:25 AM   #19
Member
 
Stev1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Default

Yeah, had it for twenty years then had to let it go!

However, bought a midget recently a lot more fun to drive.


Stev1e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 7, 2007, 5:56 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

I just happened to be searching the net and came across this evaluation of the Tokina 10-17 lens (which is essentially the same as the Pentax 10-17). The observations and evaluations are different that what has been presented here before....

http://michel.thoby.free.fr/Tokina_1...be_shaved.html


interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:02 AM.