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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 25, 2010, 1:21 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

There is a lot of misinformation about defishing of fisheye. It is a one click chore before resizing. Like this one



The defished version








Daniel

image below (Before defishing )
Attached Images
 
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 25, 2010, 1:27 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Another image compared with original in here . Also from Zenitar























As you can see , fisheye image after defishing has not had that much difference from that of a rectilinear one. One little difference is that after defishing area will be taken out in adjusting the distortion. See the feet at the left end of 2nd picture (staircase). That has been taken out.

Last edited by danielchtong; Apr 26, 2010 at 6:11 AM.
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2010, 2:02 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
jgredline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles...
Posts: 1,175
Default

Personally, I use wide angle lenses 90% of the time.
My personal favorite is the Sigma 10-20. I have it in both Pentax and Nikon mount. I also have the DA15 that is an amazing little fellow. But back to the sigma. At 10mm you get some pleasant distortion (pleasant to me) and at 14mm there is virtually none. At 20mm the lens is pretty sharp. I usually have mine at 10 or 20mm and at F/8.

My sorry attempt at an HDR


@10mm


@20mm


@10mm


All of these are with the Sigma 10-20 on a K-7
http://jgredline.smugmug.com/Other/A...29156936_DmVj6
__________________
My flickr
My blog, where the eyes are the window to the soul.
Thank you very much, Javier
jgredline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2010, 8:48 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

Looks like a nice lens, great shots. 850,0000 lives wasted ?
NMRecording is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2010, 11:04 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

My best street shot taken in Paris with Zen 16mm. Content and location self-explanatory. They were doing that for almost 10 minutes. Torontonians never do that















2nd image from Zen 16mm, Avignon , southern France


danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2010, 9:29 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
RioRico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In mountainous California or Arizona or Guatemala or somewhere.
Posts: 224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NMRecording View Post
Looks like a nice lens, great shots. 850,0000 lives wasted ?
That's a low estimate of Iraqi deaths since the illegal invasion/occupation.

But I digress. I dearly love and use the DA10-17 on my K20D. My Zenitar 16/2.8 can ride either the K20D or my ZX-M, and a Lentar (Tokina) 21/3.8 is often on the ZX-M, where it IS ultrawide. The 10-17 and Zen are indeed fishy, so I'm either defishing in PP or composing so the fishiness doesn't matter. A rectilinear ultrawide, maybe 12-24 or 10-20 or the new 8-16, definitely makes my "when I can afford it" list.

Agreed that AF is superfluous in much UWA work -- hyperfocus for near-infinite DOF and concentrate on framing, composition, action. BUT too many shooters IMHO use UWA glass for landscapes etc. Echh. UWA pushes distances away. UWA is well-used to separate a very close subject from their background, or placing subject firmly within a context. The landscapes I shoot in the 10-16mm neighborhood are generally just inches away as I crawl in the dirt and weeds. UWA works best in small spaces.
RioRico is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2010, 5:51 PM   #27
Junior Member
 
dam59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Milan, Italy
Posts: 20
Default

I finally went for the Sigma 10-20, the f4-5.6 one (cheaper). I also held the f3.5 one in my hands: bigger, brighter, ultrasonic focusing, constant f/stop over the zooming range but, at the end of the story, not worth the (significant) extra price to my purpose. F stops and focusing speed are not so crucial in such a wideangle zoom. Build quality is good also in the less sophisticated one that is even better in optical performance. IMHO a good quality/price ratio.
Damiano
dam59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2010, 10:12 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
NMRecording's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eastern Appalachains
Posts: 866
Default

very nice, can you post up some shots with it? This was the lens I was looking at as well. Have seen some very good prices goin for them on ebay recently.
NMRecording 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 6:10 PM.