Pentax DA 10-17mm fisheye photos


Jun 24, 2009
371
0
0
#1
I bought the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye about a month ago and it's been surprisingly versatile. Thought I'd post some photos to show the possiblilties. Nothing fancy. Landscape, buildings, close quarters, Coke Light bottles, and so on.

Fire hydrant



Three green round seats about 10 metres apart



East Coast Park beach

 

Jun 24, 2009
371
0
0
#2
My tripod in front of a playground. The subject matter isn't what's great, but below when u see the pics I've put up you can see how close I was to the tripod, yet it shows such a wide view.



Coke Light bottle at Subway (Welcome to Subway!)

 

Jun 24, 2009
371
0
0
#3
And some photos showing where my camera was positioned relative to the subject matter:





 

Jun 24, 2009
371
0
0
#4
I did take some very fisheye-ish photos of someoutdoor food courts, but I have limited space on my flickr account so havent uploaded.

Instead, here's some fisheyes I took while in China a few weeks ago:

Here, I used 17mm- the distortion is minimal, and for me, as a non professional, I'm more than happy to simply have a non pixel peeping brick wall tested perfect wide angle shot, rather than have to bring the bulky 12-24mm.



The room in this old Chinese Library was quite narrow:



Some more normal fisheye photos at 10mm:



One thing I learnt was that a tripod is essential for taking sharp photos. This Chinese styled pagoda was in a very poorly lit area. But using a tripod means I could set the exposure time and get a bright and sharp photo, without any blurring that would result from a handheld photo. This isn't news for any experienced person, but this was my first time seriously using a tripod, let alone taking one overseas. The one I used only cost SGD$28.90 from Best. Light at 600 grams, and cheap enough if it broke, I wouldn't be broke, hehe.



 

Last edited:

banana0ne

New Member
Oct 29, 2008
1,488
0
0
jurong west
#8
The one I used only cost SGD$28.90 from Best. Light at 600 grams, and cheap enough if it broke, I wouldn't be broke, hehe.
If your tripod breaks with camera on, cost of damage would be more that the cost of good tripod itself...
 

Moonlightsg

Senior Member
Jan 28, 2010
764
1
18
#9
Ya hor, the tripod is only 600gm!... a 16-50 already 600gm....
if this tripod break and fall... i will not cry for the tripod as it don't make me broke...... will cry for the 16-50 which make me broke...
 

Jun 24, 2009
371
0
0
#10
What you guys say is true, but I did not carry anything that was over 1kg.

Pentax kx-550gm, 43mm f1.9-150gm, 10-17mm fisheye- 320gm.

And thanks everyone for your constructive comments about my photos, or the fisheye lens....

Wait!

You didn't!!!!!

Maybe I should change thread heading to "I used a cheap tripod- go ahead- tell me how dumb I was!"

;) ;) ;)
 

ayuready

New Member
Apr 7, 2010
584
1
0
35
#11
haha relax bro, only goes to show how much we care about one another well-being =)

anyway personally, i still do not know how to appreciate FE shot, thought seems like a good frontier to explore =)

too many temptation!
 

lwz89

New Member
Dec 21, 2007
98
0
0
28
#12
Hey John! I'm definitely no master in fisheye photos. but I have used the da 10-17 fisheye quite a number of times. i must agree that this lens is really versatile. but to really max the potential of this lens, you will need some post-processing. i'll recommend that get the fisheye hemi software, or a software to defish it to rectilinear. I have used your pictures as some examples below. you will be amazed at how much more use you can have with the fisheye lens. a not-so-nice photo can be instantly transformed into someting better


original


fisheye hemi


rectilinear



original


fisheye hemi
 

lwz89

New Member
Dec 21, 2007
98
0
0
28
#13

rectilinear



original


fisheye hemi


rectilinear

The rectilinear defish didnt really work very well as some lines are still curve. this is probably caused i din defish the original picture from your camera. but nevertheless you can see the difference!
I would generally prefer to use the fisheye hemi as it usually produces better results. rectilinear defishing works but not as much, depending on the picture. one thing that you can note is that the rectilinear defish crops out alot of the photo, while the fisheye hemi still retains most of the scene. you will realise that the vertical lines are straigten while the horizontal lines still remain curved, giving a little fisheye effect. strongly recommended!
 

lwz89

New Member
Dec 21, 2007
98
0
0
28
#14
one last thing that the fisheye hemi stands out from the rectilinear defish is for people photos. you person that is one the left or right of the fisheye picture will look like a banana.




with rectilinear, its still a big no-no!




with fisheye hemi, the photo looks usable now!




before I got the fisheye hemi, i will always try not to have people at the side of the frame, especially during group photos. its no longer a worry now, though the resolution decreases but its definitely worth it!
enjoy ur fisheye. you will be surprised my its (almost) macro abilities as well.
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#15
Hey John! I'm definitely no master in fisheye photos. but I have used the da 10-17 fisheye quite a number of times. i must agree that this lens is really versatile. but to really max the potential of this lens, you will need some post-processing. i'll recommend that get the fisheye hemi software, or a software to defish it to rectilinear. I have used your pictures as some examples below. you will be amazed at how much more use you can have with the fisheye lens. a not-so-nice photo can be instantly transformed into someting better
i'm rather puzzled.

with the cropping and loss of resolution that arises from your PP workflow, wouldn't it be more straightforward to take the pic using a rectilinear and than post process it to contain slight fish-eye effect if the situation calls for it? :confused:
 

Moonlightsg

Senior Member
Jan 28, 2010
764
1
18
#16
Thank lwz89... learn something new!!!
fisheye hemi!
 

banana0ne

New Member
Oct 29, 2008
1,488
0
0
jurong west
#17
What you guys say is true, but I did not carry anything that was over 1kg.

Pentax kx-550gm, 43mm f1.9-150gm, 10-17mm fisheye- 320gm.

And thanks everyone for your constructive comments about my photos, or the fisheye lens....

Wait!

You didn't!!!!!

Maybe I should change thread heading to "I used a cheap tripod- go ahead- tell me how dumb I was!"

;) ;) ;)
Relax, It's a minor thing we just noticed. Anyway, I love Fish eye, it's a truly creative lens to work with its curvy ultrawide rendition. just be careful not to include your arms and feet when shooting... ;)

 

lwz89

New Member
Dec 21, 2007
98
0
0
28
#18
i'm rather puzzled.

with the cropping and loss of resolution that arises from your PP workflow, wouldn't it be more straightforward to take the pic using a rectilinear and than post process it to contain slight fish-eye effect if the situation calls for it? :confused:
its up to personal preference. a fisheye-to-rectilinear will not look excatly like that taken straight from a rectilinear, same for a rectilinear-to-fisheye. one ting i like more about the fisheye is the wider angle of field. a 10mm fisheye can cover more scene than a 10mm rectilinear, say a sigma 10-20. yes there is resolution loss, but I can live with it. the fisheye can give me more versitility.

but then again, like i said its all up to personal preference. a rectilinear lens may be more preferred by others. :)
 

detritus

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,922
3
0
shootingbugs.blogspot.com
#19
its up to personal preference. a fisheye-to-rectilinear will not look excatly like that taken straight from a rectilinear, same for a rectilinear-to-fisheye. one ting i like more about the fisheye is the wider angle of field. a 10mm fisheye can cover more scene than a 10mm rectilinear, say a sigma 10-20. yes there is resolution loss, but I can live with it. the fisheye can give me more versitility.

but then again, like i said its all up to personal preference. a rectilinear lens may be more preferred by others. :)
i see. thanks for your clarification. :)

i didn't invest in fisheye cos it didn't like the perspective (it makes me dizzy;p) ... agree with your observation that its hard to compose for portraits.
 

banana0ne

New Member
Oct 29, 2008
1,488
0
0
jurong west
#20
i see. thanks for your clarification. :)

i didn't invest in fisheye cos it didn't like the perspective (it makes me dizzy;p) ... agree with your observation that its hard to compose for portraits.
to add up, it's hard to level the fisheye, a little tilt will show very large effect...
 

Top Bottom