 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / March 2007Tokina/Pentax 10-17mm fisheye zoom
Anyone here tried this lens out? I'm curious to know whether it becomes fully rectilinear as it zooms from 10 to 17mm, or keeps the same curvature for the central portion, or something in between. N. >Anyone here tried this lens out? > >I'm curious to know whether it becomes fully rectilinear as it zooms from 10 >to 17mm, or keeps the same curvature for the central portion, or something >in between. It's always a fisheye, so your second guess is correct - the centre is simply "cropped" as you zoom in, as with any zoom lens. So at 17mm it exactly like any other 17mm fisheye lens.  SignatureJohn Bean >>Anyone here tried this lens out? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > lens. So at 17mm it exactly like any other 17mm fisheye > lens. Thanks, exactly what I wanted to know. Neil > Anyone here tried this lens out? I did. Rather than forming a perfectly circular image like the original "fish-eyes" on 35mm film, this one even when set at 10mm can fill the frame, but with a lot of barrel distortion. You can correct that out in software and get a reasonably rectilinear result, but IMHO the resultant "drawing" at 10mm is too extreme while corner abberations are at an unacceptable level. I was not happy with its sharpness even when stopped down. After a day's test I returned it to B&H for a refund. Since I like wide lenses, I had hoped this one could serve as an all- purpose super-wide but found it far too much of a "specialty" lens for my taste. It certainly was considerably wider than my Pentax 16~45 F/4 (which has a slight amount of correctable barrel but otherwise is quite rectilinear), but not as good by any other criteria. Try the 16~45, or save money and settle for a cheap 16mm Zenitar F/2.8 from eBay which actually seems a bit wider than the 16~45. Most Zenitar owners are quite satisfied, and it de-fishes very nicely even for architecture. The 16~45 is useful over a wider range, but also far bulkier than the Zenitar, which at 16mm is already as wide as most folks can go comfortably. >> Anyone here tried this lens out? > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > far bulkier than the Zenitar, which at 16mm is already as wide as > most folks can go comfortably. If you want an all purpose super wide and don't have a Canon mount try the Sigma 10-20mm, which is a rectilinear wide angle. The Tokina is a fisheye, not a rectilinear wide angle--Tokina states this clearly. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > If you want an all purpose super wide and don't have a Canon mount try > the Sigma 10-20mm, which is a rectilinear wide angle. > > The Tokina is a fisheye, not a rectilinear wide angle--Tokina states > this clearly. Tokina also offers a 12-24 wide angle zoom that IS rectilinear. I own this lens and it is quite nice, but I haven't had the opportunity to really put it through its paces yet. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0 > Tokina also offers a 12-24 wide angle zoom that IS rectilinear. I own > this > lens and it is quite nice, but I haven't had the opportunity to really put > it > through its paces yet. Same here. Now that we're finally getting some really nice weather here in the northeast I'll be putting some mileage on the 12-24 very soon. Got it on my D70s right now, in fact. Neil > If you want an all purpose super wide and don't have a Canon mount try > the Sigma 10-20mm, which is a rectilinear wide angle. > > The Tokina is a fisheye, not a rectilinear wide angle--Tokina states > this clearly. You bet. But what I was wondering was whether it changed to (or toward) rectilinear as moved toward the 17mm end. That would have been interesting. I already have Tokina's 12-24 and am very impressed with its quality, so thought the 10-17 fisheye might be a fun thing to have. Can't have too many lenses! :-) Neil I can add my approval for the Sigma 10-20mm. For a lens that wide, the distortion is minimal, a bit of barrel at the wide end and a bit of picushion at 20mm. Since I usually use a superwide for the distance exageration anyway, this plays right into it's task. There's a bit of blue fringing wide open at the extreme corners at 10mm, but, if it was ever visible in a real world print, Photohop can deal with that quite nicely. The color is more saturated than my kit zoom, which was the biggest failure of my older superwides. I have no idea how it compares heads-up to the Tokina and Tamron lenses, but the sigma is, by a very small margin, the widest angle of view of th three. Philip >>> Anyone here tried this lens out? >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >this clearly. >-- >> Anyone here tried this lens out? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > bulkier than the Zenitar, which at 16mm is already as wide as most folks > can go comfortably. Thanks for the info. I already have the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye (the only SLRs I use now are digital and in the DX format) and it's great, so the 10-17 would be somewhat redundant, but the idea of a zoom fisheye sort of intrigued me. Your experience with unsatisfactory sharpness cools me on that idea, however. Neil |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.