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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 19, 2007, 9:29 AM   #1
Member
 
Stev1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
Default

Has anyone got one of these, if so how good do you think it is?
Stev1e is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 19, 2007, 11:56 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

i've seen good work done with this. i'm not much of a fan for FEs. i like the rectilinear 12-24mm alot more.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 12:22 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Steve,

I don't have one, but interested_observer recently posted a pretty good evaluation of the 10-17 in a recent post

http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=94

Go to the bottom of the page.

What wasn't mentioned tho was "defishing" software (like PTLens) which corrects the distortion. It will pretty much automatically straighten the lines (with profiles for the particular lens) and give you a rectilinear view -- some of the scene will be cropped, and some of the areas will lose some resolution, but depending on how wide you really want with one shot, this might be acceptable. While the 12-24 is a very good lens, the 10-17 defished gives you a much wider angle as a 10mm diagonal FE than the 2mm difference of the 12mm rectilinear would seem to. Also, if you keep the main lines of reference toward the center of the frame, the distortion can be minimized, even at 10mm.

To most, it's a novelty lens, learn to use it, and it can be a very useful ultra wide tool, in addition to being able to play with the distortion.

This is probably my next lens. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:12 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hi, I have been busy reclaiming about 80GB of drive space, moving images off to a USB drive, and then replicating it - as I came across this post. The 10-17 is a speciality lens, and I do like it. I have posted some here a few times now. Right after I received it, my wife (dragged me) to a guniea pig show, so I popped on the lens and used it for everything, so as to better understand it. I learned quite a bit about it in a day. I orginally bought it for interiors - museums and the like. For that I believe that it is quite good. It allows you to get VERY close to things and get excellent images. It is sharp and crisp. The 10 end is 180 degrees FOV - whatch your feet and your head, as they might be in the frame. The 10 end does have curverature to it. That said the 17 end is very rectlinear - as compared to the 10 end. The 17 really straightens out the curves.

A lot about the lens is great. Its a zoom, you can have a lot of fun with it, and take interesting prespectives. Its a constant f4, and the build is great. It comes in its own padded pouch/bag - a very nice touch. Picking it up it the first time it feels like a precision instrument as opposed to say the 18-55 which is really ok, but does not set the world on fire in terms of build (don't take this as a negative - I had to compare it to something that most people have).

In terms of defishing an image, I have not gone this way as of yet. I have just been using Silkypic to convert to JPG and then IrfanView to resample/resize to 800x600 and then to save as at (usually 90%) to a file size that Steve will accept here. That said, I have not been really happy with what has turned out - others have much better results in my estimation, so please make suggestions if you think that the images are lacking (I think that they are compared to others - i.e., my posting technique). Where I am going with this thought is that I am looking at workflow software, trying to keep the vast majority in RAW, so I am thinking of the Bibble Pro package that does have the ability to correct for various lens - all the Pentax, but have not gone there yet. I want to combine it with my other interests of panaroams (stitching) and HDR (hopefully in the raw - but not counting on it). Long story - short - I have not defished anything to see what the resuts are.

So, I went back and picked out a few samples - all untouched - you decide.....

There is one set - on the way to Grand Junction CO where I essentially shot the same scene with both the 10-17 (at 10) and the 16-45 (at 16) within yards of each other, so there is another comparision.

as always - Suggestions are VERY welcome....

This first one is a set of cotten combines. Believe it or not - I am standing about 18 inches from the front corner of the combine to the left - and no I am not joking.
10-17 @11mm

Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:14 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

As I said in a couple of other posts, this lens on landscapes, pushes the horizion way way way back.

10-17 @10mm
Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:16 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

I found out just by trying things out that this is a great close up lens. Here I am not more than 6 inches away, with the camera sitting on the show board the guinea pig is sitting on - pretty much lens to nose.

[email protected]
Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:18 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Here is another landscape

10-17 @10mm
Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:21 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Here is somewhat of an intermediate. Yesterday, I was sitting on the ground, with the camera resting on my legs, shooting up into the tree cover. I just let it auto focus and shoot. You have to watch what is in your frame - with the FOV so wide.....

[email protected]

Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:25 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Now here is a comparison between the 10-17 @ 10mm and the 16-45 @16. This was unintended. Actually I should have set this up better from exactly the same location, using the same aperature and hopefully the same shutter speed.

So forgive me for not doing an apples to apples comparision here, but this is what I have and so this is what you get to see....

The shooting locations are probably within 10 to 25 feet of each other, so - use that as a rule of measure when judging everything.

10-17 @10

Attached Images
 
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2007, 6:26 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

16-45 @ 16mm
Attached Images
 
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 1:21 PM.