10-17 Fisheye...
Posted 05/05/2011 - 09:57
Link
The trouble with wide lenses is that they seem to push the background really far away, giving a huge empty foreground. You have to find something to put in that foreground to break the emptiness. It can be a tree, rock or whatever you like, but the foreground needs something in it.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)
Posted 05/05/2011 - 10:32 - Helpful Comment
Link
My only ultra wide is the 10-17mm fisheye. I think the IQ drops off quite badly as it goes towards the corner, and this is more significant when the fisheye distortion is stronger.
I've been experimenting with it trying to point it slightly heading down or up when shooting, as the distortion follows a bit of the natural curvature of the earth and lining the horizon at different angles seems to have different effects.
For it being defished, I've posted an example here using a LR 3.4 lens profile (pre set by adobe )
link
This is the most impressive one I've seen/done, others aren't as good towards the corners but still just about acceptable considering how distorted it was before editing.
I've been experimenting with it trying to point it slightly heading down or up when shooting, as the distortion follows a bit of the natural curvature of the earth and lining the horizon at different angles seems to have different effects.
For it being defished, I've posted an example here using a LR 3.4 lens profile (pre set by adobe )
link
This is the most impressive one I've seen/done, others aren't as good towards the corners but still just about acceptable considering how distorted it was before editing.
Posted 05/05/2011 - 12:30
Link
i - I got the 10-17 mm and had to ship it back because it was defect. I then decided to go for the Sigma 8-16 mm for various reasons. The Sigma is corrected so no Fish-Eye Effect. I like the fish-eye a lot but having it on every picture is a bit "boring" - as it is easier to create a fisheye picture out of a corrected ultrawide than correcting a fish-eye photo to a non-fish-eye, I decided to go for the corrected lense. In addition - it is amazing how much more view angle you get btween 8 and 10 mm.
For the pics itself - I like the ultrawide to vreate pano-like pictures by cropping them instead of stitching several normal pictures together. I am doing HDR photography a lot and a HDR pano is always a nightmare as you easily end up with 15-25 individual pictures just to create one pano. With 8 mm I need only one series (max. 5 pics) and can first create the HDR and then crop thhe picture (if I go for a non HDR, I only need one picture). By cropping the upper and lower third of the pic, you get amazing panos with such lenses.
The other use case I often use is a detail shot of a big object in the foreground and then tilting the camera to force strange perspectives - this can create lots of dynamic in a picture (you can check one of my last gallery entries of a british loco)....
Somehow ultrawides are also very much kind of fun lenses - once you have it you have to start playing around with it and experimenting (amazing how much different a picture can look like, when you start to tilt the camera). I am sure, once you have it and start using it, you will easily get into this experimenting mood.
For the pics itself - I like the ultrawide to vreate pano-like pictures by cropping them instead of stitching several normal pictures together. I am doing HDR photography a lot and a HDR pano is always a nightmare as you easily end up with 15-25 individual pictures just to create one pano. With 8 mm I need only one series (max. 5 pics) and can first create the HDR and then crop thhe picture (if I go for a non HDR, I only need one picture). By cropping the upper and lower third of the pic, you get amazing panos with such lenses.
The other use case I often use is a detail shot of a big object in the foreground and then tilting the camera to force strange perspectives - this can create lots of dynamic in a picture (you can check one of my last gallery entries of a british loco)....
Somehow ultrawides are also very much kind of fun lenses - once you have it you have to start playing around with it and experimenting (amazing how much different a picture can look like, when you start to tilt the camera). I am sure, once you have it and start using it, you will easily get into this experimenting mood.
_____________________________________________
Colors are the lack of darkness
You find more of my pictures here: https://pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/axelluther or on my web page: www.axel-luther.com
Colors are the lack of darkness
You find more of my pictures here: https://pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/axelluther or on my web page: www.axel-luther.com
Posted 05/05/2011 - 13:04
Link
hello,
I have the 10-17 as well as the 10-20, not sure which one i will keep as havent really used any much yet.
10-17mm: great for fun photos, it's good to experiment -->
link I think the idea is to try anything really, change the basic rules of photography to get the best of it. I havent tried de-fishing it but i got a fisheye in order to get the fisheye effect!
10-20mm: good for landscape, buildings and indoor! find the distortion at 10mm but like using it at around 12-16mm.
the only thing i should say is: "have fun!" as it's what the fisheye is all about!
p
I have the 10-17 as well as the 10-20, not sure which one i will keep as havent really used any much yet.
10-17mm: great for fun photos, it's good to experiment -->
link I think the idea is to try anything really, change the basic rules of photography to get the best of it. I havent tried de-fishing it but i got a fisheye in order to get the fisheye effect!
10-20mm: good for landscape, buildings and indoor! find the distortion at 10mm but like using it at around 12-16mm.
the only thing i should say is: "have fun!" as it's what the fisheye is all about!
p
Digital: KP, Film: KX, ME Super
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Pentax 16-85mm, Pentax DA 20-40 ltd
Pentax 21mm f3.2 ltd, Sigma 24mm f2.8 macro, Pentax 28mm f2.8, Pentax 35mm f2.8 macro, Pentax 43mm f1.9 LTD, Pentax 50mm FA f1.7, Pentax A 50mm f1.7, Pentax K 55mm f1.8, Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4
Metz 36 AF-4
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Pentax 16-85mm, Pentax DA 20-40 ltd
Pentax 21mm f3.2 ltd, Sigma 24mm f2.8 macro, Pentax 28mm f2.8, Pentax 35mm f2.8 macro, Pentax 43mm f1.9 LTD, Pentax 50mm FA f1.7, Pentax A 50mm f1.7, Pentax K 55mm f1.8, Pentax DA* 55mm f1.4
Metz 36 AF-4
Posted 05/05/2011 - 15:21
Link
chaude wrote:
My only ultra wide is the 10-17mm fisheye. I think the IQ drops off quite badly as it goes towards the corner, and this is more significant when the fisheye distortion is stronger.
I've been experimenting with it trying to point it slightly heading down or up when shooting, as the distortion follows a bit of the natural curvature of the earth and lining the horizon at different angles seems to have different effects.
For it being defished, I've posted an example here using a LR 3.4 lens profile (pre set by adobe )
link
This is the most impressive one I've seen/done, others aren't as good towards the corners but still just about acceptable considering how distorted it was before editing.
Thanks Chaude, I actually think that De-Fished shot is quite impressive, suprised you managed to keep any of the Railing in there at all! Short end or erm longer end???
My only ultra wide is the 10-17mm fisheye. I think the IQ drops off quite badly as it goes towards the corner, and this is more significant when the fisheye distortion is stronger.
I've been experimenting with it trying to point it slightly heading down or up when shooting, as the distortion follows a bit of the natural curvature of the earth and lining the horizon at different angles seems to have different effects.
For it being defished, I've posted an example here using a LR 3.4 lens profile (pre set by adobe )
link
This is the most impressive one I've seen/done, others aren't as good towards the corners but still just about acceptable considering how distorted it was before editing.
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 05/05/2011 - 19:52 - Helpful Comment
Link
I have recently acquired a 10-17 Fishy and I really like it, although I do find that you can get a fair bit of purple fringing where there are areas of contrast nearer the edges. Can be got rid of pretty straightforwardly in PP, but definitely something to watch out for when procssing
Regards
Regards
Posted 05/05/2011 - 22:17
Link
Thanks Matt I will look out for that as soon as I can take my Camera out again and have some Play time with the new Lens, and when I have a Bag to put it in
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 05/05/2011 - 22:19 - Helpful Comment
Link
just checked the EXIF it was at 10mm! I was very surprised by that one, other shots did have bits cropped away when I tried it.
Posted 06/05/2011 - 12:32
Link
Thanks Adrian...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
2342 posts
16 years
Storbritannia
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com