Considering..

a new lens
was wondering if anyone had any views on a nice lens for landscapes and street photography
i'm thinking the DA14, but its a bit out of my price range, so perhaps the DA21mm, or 20mm sigma. The 15-30 made by Sigma also quite interests me. I would be looking at a wider range (10-20) but I'm not quite sure if my dad will see it is viable seeing as I own the 10-17 fisheye

I'm not sure though. I'm planning on purchasing the K20D in a month or two when the price might have dropped a bit. I could however afford the DA14 if I bought a K10D, another possible option. I currently use a K100D, and I'm looking for the mp above 10 really.

Of course the other option is a prime around 100, or the 50-135 if I buy the K10D. I really have an urge to fill gaps in my focal lengths

Explain to him the difference between rectilinear and fisheye and you might get a Sigma 10-20! As I'm sure you know already, they are very different lenses despite sharing similar focal lengths.

One of these (or a Pentax 12-24) would extend your photography more so than any of the other lenses you mention - assuming you already have the 20-30mm range covered by other more ordinary lenses.

I quite fancy a DA 21mm myself (for its small size and possibly better IQ in some ways than I get from my other lenses), but it's always going to be a low priority.

ps. I know that a fisheye image can be digitally de-fishified... but not without side effects, apparently.

If you allready have the 10-17 then maybe the 16-45 would compliment it. I don't do landscapes but I did use this lens a lot in Rome where it's wideness and quality were very usefull.

I have to agree with John, the DA16-45 is a cracking compromise walk about/landscape lens, especially now that it can be had for around the £250 mark. You can just about buy this and a Sigma 10-20 (if your really need the extreme wide end) for the cost of a DA14.

Has anybody actually tried this with success? Is the distortion at the corners (e.g. off shaped faces) when you do this any diffferent from that produced by ultrawide rectilinear lenses? I also am contemplating an ultrawide and I quite enjoy the fisheye effect (I have the K17 which I use with film) but it is not always desirable. If a reasonable result can be obtained by de-fisheying I might go that route.

I think if you want straight lines buy a rectilinear lens, and they don't come much better than the Pentax 12-24mm.

The 10-17mm is fine, but trying to straighten it out on a routine basis would be a waste of time and the lens, in my opinion anyway.

When I got my 10-17, I started shooting landscapes with the idea of straightening them
It takes so much time and effort
I just compose photos to suit the fisheye now.

I do love speed of lenses
Thats why I was going for the prime
And I just prefer using primes
I don't know what it is about it
But its almost like theres one less thing to worry about
Plus the IQ is generally better

I think I might just end up going for the 90/100/105mm macro
I've always wanted a macro lens
and I would use the longer length alot.

Even using the distortion correction in the Pentax Photo Lab?

.. I do not have this pentax photo lab

Interesting

It came with my K10D although I have never used it