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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 23, 2010, 9:48 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

The Zenitar looks like a worthy contender, I'll have some time to decide before I buy but Im very thankful to have these reccomendations
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 12:05 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

The biggest thing you need to decide when you are looking at wide angles, do you want a fisheye or a pentilinear? I have both now and am glad I do.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 10:10 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

Well I already have a fish eye and its sub par but I do not use it much. Im sure A higher quality fish eye would get more use than the 40.00 one I got off ebay, but my main focus for this lens is minimal distortion and sharpness for landscapes.

The Tokina wide angles seem to be good as well, so Ill probably either get the Tokina or the Zenitar.

I hope my lens package comes today. I will be eager to try the 300mm f4 scope and the 200mm 2.8 carl zeiss
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 12:41 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

People are sort of intimidated because Zenitar or older WA are manual focus.

A lot of time you do not even need Autofocus for WA lens

Do you think I could focus these two manually (at floor level pointing upward) with my Zenitar ? No. I just estimated the subject distance, dialed in the approximate distance on the focus ring and shot.













My suggestion is not to spend money just on the AF as you hardly need it

Daniel, Toronto






========================================


DA 14mm f2.8 - discontinued but is suppose to be excellent - same physical size as the DA 12-24, need to find one
DA*15mm f4 - excellent small prime
FA 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent low light
DA* 21mm f3.2 - excellent, light weight, a small bit of distortion
SMC K 18mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one
SMC A 20mm f2.8 - discontinued, excellent - no AF, need to find one
Tokina 17mm f3.5 - discontinued, excellent, large lens (about the size of 12-24), no AF, need to find one. I see a couple become available every few months
DA 10-17 FE - excellent, AF fish eye 180 - 100 degrees FOV
DA 12-24 - excellent, rivals primes in IQ, 100 - 60 degrees FOV
DA 16-45 -excellent, discontinued, price has dropped to mid $250, not really wide angle
Tamron 10-24 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma
Tamron 11-18 - reported to be not as good as Pentax and Sigma
Sigma 10-20 - excellent
Sigma 12-24 -excellent,
Sigma 8-16 - new just announced
========================
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 3:25 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

Thanks for the response. Those pictures look very sharp, nice coloring as well. I could be mistaken but did I read somewhere that the zenitar 16mm was a fisheye lens? If so it is mild enough where I do not notice any distortions. Im not terribly worried about AF, as most shots that I use AF i just get home to realize the AF was focused on the completely wrong thing. These things are hard to notice outside in the view finder / lcd screen on camera.
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 4:59 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMRecording View Post
Thanks for the response. Those pictures look very sharp, nice coloring as well. I could be mistaken but did I read somewhere that the zenitar 16mm was a fisheye lens? If so it is mild enough where I do not notice any distortions. Im not terribly worried about AF, as most shots that I use AF i just get home to realize the AF was focused on the completely wrong thing. These things are hard to notice outside in the view finder / lcd screen on camera.
Zen is a fish eye lens. I did the mild defishing from around 84 degree to 74 degree for both images .
Also you should zero in the center of focus you want. The gear should not direct you at all.
For both image I did not need to view from the viewfinder as WA has huge DoF. An AF WA is typically $300 above that of a MF counterpart - that is the money people can save

Daniel
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 5:11 PM   #17
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

honestly, comparing a manual diaphram manual focus cheap fisheye to a good ultra-wide angle lens is really apple versus orange.

these kinds of fisheyes are good fun for certain instances, and can be used creatively with good effect.

but as for day to day wide-angle shooting, a nice rectilinear wide angle is much more convenient. you get full metering, AF, don't have to defish to get straight lines.

its my opinion you can't replace a good ultrawide with a fisheye, rather think about augmenting your arsenal with the fisheye when you want to get creative
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 6:09 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Remember with a AF wide angle lens, you still can set it to do MF. As true wide angle is more useful then a fish eye. Especially if you do not want to do to much pp editing to correct for defishing. I have had fish eyes in the past, and I rather have a pure wide angle over a fish eye for the every day uses, as I get more uses out of WA then a fish eye.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 10:29 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
honestly, comparing a manual diaphram manual focus cheap fisheye to a good ultra-wide angle lens is really apple versus orange.

these kinds of fisheyes are good fun for certain instances, and can be used creatively with good effect.

but as for day to day wide-angle shooting, a nice rectilinear wide angle is much more convenient. you get full metering, AF, don't have to defish to get straight lines.

its my opinion you can't replace a good ultrawide with a fisheye, rather think about augmenting your arsenal with the fisheye when you want to get creative

Oops I should have qualified my statement that manual focus WA lenses have high bang for the buck value.

BTW defishing is a one click chore usually done together with resizing



Daniel
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2010, 11:13 PM   #20
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielchtong View Post
Oops I should have qualified my statement that manual focus WA lenses have high bang for the buck value.

BTW defishing is a one click chore usually done together with resizing



Daniel

yea, i agree that zenitar is great value. enough that someone could easily have both
Hards80 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 3:30 PM.