Fisheye for Pentax
Posted 27/02/2014 - 20:19
Link
If you think the Q route might be an option why not go for the original with 01 or 02 lens which can be bought around £100, even buying a toy fish eye it would be half the cost.
Posted 27/02/2014 - 20:27
Link
Interesting thought Chris. But is was thinking of the Q with the fisheye as an option, the zoom would be a bonus. Oh and I was thinking of new over pre-owned.
Having said that, the thought of an original Q with its metal body from the likes of fleabay and then getting a toy fisheye maybe even cheaper.
Having said that, the thought of an original Q with its metal body from the likes of fleabay and then getting a toy fisheye maybe even cheaper.
Some Cameras
Posted 27/02/2014 - 21:35 - Helpful Comment
Link
I have the 10-17 fisheye and I adore it, in the right circumstances. I have had a go with the toy fisheye on the Q and was not that impressed… As I recall it did need a bit of effort focussing to deliver sharp results (although that was OK as long as the Q display was zoomed in), but to me it just wasn't 'fishy' enough (if that is an adjective). The 10-17 at 10mm is very cool to my eye, and whilst you're are right it does exhibit plenty of CA, especially at the edges and in high contrast scenes, I have generally found it pretty easy to get rid in post-processing. I just use PSE8 but newer packages with built-in lens profiles can probably remove it even more easily. Personally, for a real fishy effect I would go with the 10-17 every time I think (but maybe that's just me)
Of course, when you take into account the Q body and other lens as well… hmmm
Cheers
Of course, when you take into account the Q body and other lens as well… hmmm
Cheers
Posted 01/03/2014 - 22:16
Link
I have the fisheye for the Q. It's manual focus and I find it difficult to focus accurately. It is also a toy lens, don't forget.
Posted 19/03/2014 - 19:24
Link
Well, in the end, I went for the 10-17mm. And Guess what, picked it up at lunch and walked around Manchester. I LOVE it......
Some Cameras
Posted 19/03/2014 - 22:22
Link
I'll just put in another plug for the the Samyang. It is surely going to outperform the Q combo. I like mine anyway!!
Tony Milner
Super A, ME Super, MZ6, K5II, Ricoh GR & lenses from 8-500mm
www.amilner.org
www.flickr.com/photos/tonymilner
Super A, ME Super, MZ6, K5II, Ricoh GR & lenses from 8-500mm
www.amilner.org
www.flickr.com/photos/tonymilner
Posted 19/03/2014 - 23:18
Link
Offertonhatter wrote:
Well, in the end, I went for the 10-17mm. And Guess what, picked it up at lunch and walked around Manchester. I LOVE it......
Not surprised you like it. You have to watch out for your feet though!Well, in the end, I went for the 10-17mm. And Guess what, picked it up at lunch and walked around Manchester. I LOVE it......
The 17 end is less fishy but I still find it useful, adding roundness to straight lines.
Bob
Posted 21/03/2014 - 20:00
Link
Some Cameras
Posted 21/03/2014 - 20:19
Link
The royal exchange still takes my breath away after all these years ... great shot of a stunning building and remarkable theatre .....jeff...
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.



1172 posts
17 years
UK
The SMC-DA 10-17mm Fisheye zoom is currently £329.
On the other hand, if you get a Pentax Q10 with the 5-15mm and the Fisheye "toy" lens from SRS, you would pay £318.
So £11 less.
So what would you do?
Pro's of the 10-17
It is APS-C
It is a zoom (albeit) reducing the effect of a fisheye at 17mm
IQ will be better
Pro's of the Q
You would get another tiny body and a tiny zoom to enjoy
The fisheye is fixed focal length and F5.6 for 3.2mm EVERYTHING is in focus.
It is cheaper.
Now the downsides
10-17 -
CA is not that good
the HD version is surely on the horizon, which will possibly address the CA issue (maybe, maybe not)
Q bundle-
Sensor size = more noise over the APS-C at a given ISO
Another body, albeit tiny, to carry around. Then again it is probably the same size/weight as having the 10-17 anyway.
It's just a "toy" lens, so no aperture control and manual focus. But as it is so wide it really does not matter.
I already have a mighty Pano LX-5 for compact camera stuff.
So what would you do? I want a Fisheye but would not use it that much.....but having one would be ideal.