Fisheye

I would appreciate any comments on the following :-

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120623070238&ssPageName=STR...

In particular for use on a K10D.

eg how does it work? - does it replace a lens (how?) or does it attach to the filter screw (52mm in the ase of the 18-55mm kit lens).

Is it likely to be any good? - I know it can't be compared at that price to a Pentax lens but might be worth experimenting with

Any comments would be helful

thanks and regards
Bernard

I believe that the fisheye effect can be achieved in photoshop, why waste money on a cheap gadget that cant possibly be any good optically for the price its been offered at.

I have a similar model. It does indeed screw onto the filter threads, and is rather limited, but still allows some shots that the DA10-17 fisheye can't manage. The 10-17 reaches 180° diagonally, whilst the adapter can stretch to ~160° all round. (Mine seems to cram too much into the perimeter for my tastes)


It's also possible to mount filters between the adapter & the lens, without too much adverse effect.

Whilst Photoshop can do fish eye effects, you need to take multiple shots to get the same field of view, so it's rather limited, as well as being more difficult to visualize the finished look when taking your photo. I'd find even a budget adapter an improvement.

I have a similar accessory lens... It's good for playing around on the kit-lens but don't expect much in terms of image quality... Also vignetting is severe...
All in... I you just want to play about/try fisheye and don't want (serious) quality images... Go for it...
If you want good image quality... Save for the 10-17...

This lens attachment did convince me NOT to go buy a 10-17 and the money saved went on more useful glass...

This is all just my opinion... Sure other will disagree... Maybe...

If you want a decent fisheye for sane money look at the Samyang 8mm, it has rave reviews in most quarters including from Photozone, who usually seem hard to please.

The adapter will be able to convince you whether you want a fisheye or not. Personally, I'm curious but not terribly keen. I just find it difficult to fill the frame with fisheye or ultrawide lenses, which always seem to need something stuffed in the foreground of the composition to make it work. Given I mostly go for either arty shots of isolated bits of structures (if the reaction is "What on earth is that?" then I'm happy - I'm trying to show the fine detail that most people miss) or carefully framed landscapes to lose the scruffy ground between me and the interesting part of the scene a fisheye wouldn't be much use to me.

I can highly recommend it, got mine for less than £230 new, great build and optics, even Ken Rockwell rates it highly
Manual focus only but the DoF is huge, set at 1.5-2m everything is in fccus.

John

I would maybe disagree, depending on some factors.

The 10-17 is one of my most useful and lenses, and I Don't use it for obvious fish eye effects.

I think if you had a 10-17 you would know what I mean

Another cheap alternative would be a Zenitar 16mm (c.£90 s/h) & a film body (c.£10 s/h). This shot is on out of date badly stored 400ASA colour print film: