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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 14, 2008, 9:27 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

OK, I just finished packing a slew of lenses I bought back in the early days of my LBA. These were lenses I either never use or that I basically had duplicates of (somehow I ended up with five 50mm primes, three 28mm primes, and three 135mm primes). The current price situation on used Pentax lenses worked to my advantage for once and I am now considering how to "reinvest."

At the top of my list is a wide angle zoom. I have followed every posting of the 12-24mm, 10-17mm, and the Sigma 10-20mm that I have seen here. I think we even have a member who has both the 10-17 and 12-24mm. I am leaning towards the 10-17 based on the fact that I can afford it right now and the 12-24mm would require patience and financial discipline (ugh!). I don't want to make the wrong choice though.

I would appreciate any input from those who have any of these lenses. In particular, I am curious about how much quality is lost from a photo by "defishing" it in software. Would you buy the same lens again or would you make a different choice? If post processing will allow me to correct perspective without losing quality it sounds like the 10-17mm could give me the best of both worlds. Man I wish there was a camera store within two hours drive of here!

Thanks for any help,
Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 14, 2008, 9:41 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

I only have the DA 12-24, though I did get a chance to shoot both the 10-17 and 12-24 when the Pentax rep was at my local camera store. I ended up buying the 12-24 because of my experience - while I think the fish-eye would be great fun, I wouldn't want the distortion all the time, and decided I also didn't want to have to de-fish the pictures. I think that some programs will allow you to de-fish without losing too much on the sides, but didn't really look into it that much. Passing up the 10-17 was the right choice for me, but it won't be the right one for everyone. I never really looked into the Sigma lens, though I think I read that it is not a fish-eye, so you would wouldn't have the effect that's so much fun with a fish-eye (but is also a limitation when you don't want it).
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 1:15 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hi Tim, I have the 10-17 and its a fun lens. I will admit that its not for everyone. I too sat here trying to decide between the 10-17 and the 12-24. I went with the 10-17 because it was wider and cheaper, and I could defish. Have I defished - no, so I can not really answer your question on that aspect of the lens. I plan to, but I get so busy, that I can only do so much.

Now, I am waiting for the 24th of the month, to see the new announcements from Pentax. Will it change my mind on now getting the 12-24 - probably not. I see reasons to have both, as I do really like the wide angle just like a lot of people are really into the telephoto aspect.

I am asking myself (given that I have the 16-45) if I really need the 12-16 range. The things I see that have been done with the 12-24 I would like to do also. I would also like to play with all three lenses together to learn. My wife said go ahead as a Christmas present so I am just waiting here to see what happens.

Beyond that - I really can't help.

I have seen some defished results where you loose a bit of the edge and maybe some bottom, depending on the image was taken. Over all, I think that they both have their place and I am hoping to improve my skill playing around with them. I do have to say that the 10-17 does open up some additiona avenues in Photography. I have seen photos where I would have expected much more bend that was in the image. I find that you can learn quite a bit with the lens. For me it has been a great learning tool. The first day I had it I used it as a walk around lens all day. Just trying out things, and the results were really quite interesting and informative to me.

Good luck on your decision....
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 5:19 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
snostorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb, IL, USA
Posts: 2,770
Default

Hi Tim,

I recently got the 10-17. My thoughts were that it was significantly less expensive, I don't shoot wide all that much, and defished, it's a lot wider than anything out there. A rectilinear 12mm lens has a FOV of @ 100 degrees. A rectilinear 10mm would have a FOV of @ 110 degrees.

The 10-17 FE at 10mm gives you 180 degrees diagonal, and defished is about 135 degrees. That's the equivalent of about a 6mm rectilinear lens, if there is such a creature.

I've only played with the PSP FE correction tool, which is easy, but isn't very sophisticated, and have started looking at specialty software which I assume will do the job better, but I haven't come to any conclusions yet -- I've tried a few programs that are just too technical for me at this stage, and I just can't get my brain around, so it might be a long process. . .:shock:

Even tho I'd probably use the 12-24 more, I just couldn't justify the cost of a really wide rectilinear zoom, or primes -- maybe if I really get into shooting wide I might see it in the future, but probably not. . . I have too much fun with teles. . .

Scott
snostorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 15, 2008, 12:41 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

well tim,
since i do not the FEs i think i'd go with the Sigma 10-20mm. it gets raves at fred miranda and is priced between the others..

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 6:50 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

Thanks Harriet, IO, Scott, and Roy. It is a tough choice and there is that whole 77mm Limited thing going on in my head too. And now the Tamron 70-200mm thread. The good news is all of you (well except Roy) are happy with your choices so hopefully whichever one I chose I will have no reason to look back with regret.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16, 2008, 10:23 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

Tim - why don't you let me know what the California Lottery numbers are, then I could get the 77 Limited (how I'd love to have this lens, even though I'm not sure I would use it much), the 10-17 FE, and the Tamron 70-200 2.8. There's just too many interesting lenses out there, and I don't have enough money...
mtngal 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 8:44 PM.