That 10-17 fisheye vs 10-20 question...again

[pinholecam]

I've looked so many photos on pbase, here and flickr. Everytime I think I'm decided, I see some picts made by the other lens and I'm swayed over the other side

I'm looking at taking landscapes and large buildings (interior and exterior) (esp on tour). It seems that the fisheye can do landscapes with some good composition (ie. center point of interest; horizon in the centre), some interior, but would be real iffy for buildings. I really like the large FOV as well.

The plus for the rectilinear 10-20 is of course the rectilinear
Seems like its a better all rounder with cost and narrower FOV as the only (slight) cons.

Anyone care to share their experience with the 10-17 fisheye, esp on the narrow end (16-17mm)?
How wide is it VS the 10mm at 16-17mm?
How acceptable are the straight lines (@17mm)?


thx

 

[Gengh]

I've never owned either lens, so I can't give a user review...

But just to see how "straight" lines look at 17mm on the fish eye, maybe you can look here on Photozone. And for real life pictures, can look in Pbase camera and lens database. You can find the 10-20mm there too, just have to look under Sigma.

 

[le petit prince]

Never used a fisheye, have the 10-20.

I understand they are very different lenses for different uses, and not exactly alternatives/replacements. What are your needs? That'll help you decide

 

[ascii]

i owned both lenses before and what i can tell :

Image Quality :
DA10-17 : 9/10
Sigma : 9/10

Pentax at 17mm : Still there are a bit distortion at the side , not really a straight line though.

In terms of wide coverage, of course the fish eye will give better coverage if you don't mind about the distortion.

 

[night86mare]

Anyone care to share their experience with the 10-17 fisheye, esp on the narrow end (16-17mm)?
How wide is it VS the 10mm at 16-17mm?
How acceptable are the straight lines (@17mm)?

i have both, i don't really use the 10-17 as a 10-17, more like a 10mm fisheye. basically it just "crops" (of course detail is better) away the sides of the 10mm image, so you can probably picture it from 10-17 pictures.

le petit prince is right, they aren't exactly alternatives to each other, unless you enjoy defishing every shot, and definitely IQ will be affected after defish. if you see how the image degrades slightly when you correct for barrel distortion you will get what i mean, let alone massive distortion like those in fisheyes. but of course, makes no difference in websize..

fisheye tends to well, enhance distortion, it works better for certain types of shots, if you ask me.. of course you can also use it to take fun shots.

here are some pictures taken with 10-17 at 10mm..

compared to sigma 10-20:

like i mentioned elsewhere, if you want the horizon to be straight, as it usually is for most typical landscape shots, then you should get the 10-20mm, it is better for things like that.

the 10-17 is probably better for architectural shots, or shots which require large coverage. to be honest, i use the 10-20 way more than the 10-17, because i do landscapes more often.

 

[ilyas]

hey night86mare, a bit off-topic, but was just wondering where the photo of the bridge above was taken?

anyway, like they all said, 2 different lenses. you could definitely get more interesting photos of landscapes and buildings with the 10-17, but it's more of a fun lens to shoot kind of thing. if you were more serious with landscapes i would suggest the 10-20 tho. but really you can't really go wrong with either, you'll find the perfect use for whichever you buy sooner or later.

 

[night86mare]

hey night86mare, a bit off-topic, but was just wondering where the photo of the bridge above was taken?

which bridge?

there is a bridge in the second and the fourth..

but anyways,

first one - punggol lrt tracks
second one - hong kong central (zhong huan) area, the bridge leading from the mtr exit to the shopping areas
third one - merlion
fourth one - lake albufera, valencia, spain

 

[xylestesins]

I'm mainly a portraiture/street shooter.
Although 90% of the time i'm not using a digital camera to do my street shooting.

I wasn't going for the 10-20, but i was looking towards the 14mm, 12-24mm. It wasn't until the 10-17mm popped up on the Pentax B&S section that i really considered it as an alternative (it doesn't come around often so i dismissed it in the past). With a limited budget to spare, the 12-24mm was really creating wallet worries for me. The 10-17m or 14mm gave me some comfort, being in the $500-600 zone, and the 12-24mm around $900 (for second hands).

Knowing myself, i'm far from a landscape shooter. I'm a student with fairly protective parents, so i can't go off hiking to some mountain or wander off to an obscure area in an attempt to get a better angle. That applies only when i'm travelling overseas. But, i only shoot landscapes casually when i'm overseas!

I went for the 10-17mm in the end and i'm glad i did. My older sis is one of those lomo fans and she has the fisheye permanently on the dslr when she's using it now. My precious 50mm f1.4 gets chucked aside. To the average user, i guess the slight distortion at 17mm is something they won't mind at all.
Apart from that, the 10-17mm just fulfills my wish for it to be both a semi-serious and fun lens. The close focus is great too. The lens is just a blast with my friends and we have waaay more fun with it than just bokeh, which most people seem to enjoy with a dslr.

If you can overlook slightly bendy lines, try out the fisheye.

If you want to get serious with your landscaping, the 12-24mm or 12-20mm is your staple. Get that before trying out a fisheye.

 

[pinholecam]

Nightmare,
Saw your very nice picts and explanation on the other thread. :thumbsup:

Thanks all, for the explanations. Seems like I should get 10-20, as I will do large building shots.