Wide angle question/favour
Posted 20/04/2009 - 18:28
Link
Photozone.de has some photos you can compare up of both (not the new sigma).
Posted 20/04/2009 - 18:39
Link
If you meant 12mm vs 10mm there's examples around
HERE (scroll down)
HERE
Plenty of others around. It looks like a huge difference, but in reality can be equalled out by taking a few steps. If you absolutely need the width because you can't move then the Sigma is your only option at present. Tamron are releasing a 10-24mm but not sure when we'll se it in Pentax fitment.
HERE (scroll down)
HERE
Plenty of others around. It looks like a huge difference, but in reality can be equalled out by taking a few steps. If you absolutely need the width because you can't move then the Sigma is your only option at present. Tamron are releasing a 10-24mm but not sure when we'll se it in Pentax fitment.
Posted 20/04/2009 - 18:57
Link
Giving you a kind Hand.
43mm DA*16-50mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0032.jpg[/IMG]
24mm DA*16-50mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0031.jpg[/IMG]
12mm DA10-17mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0033.jpg[/IMG]
10mm DA10-17mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0034.jpg[/IMG]
Hope it helps.
'The stalker'
43mm DA*16-50mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0032.jpg[/IMG]
24mm DA*16-50mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0031.jpg[/IMG]
12mm DA10-17mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0033.jpg[/IMG]
10mm DA10-17mm f8
[IMG]http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u332/nathanever82/_IGP0034.jpg[/IMG]
Hope it helps.
'The stalker'
Posted 20/04/2009 - 22:39
Link
nathanever82 wrote:
Giving you a kind Hand.
'The stalker'
Wow , And thank you , Much Appriciated, Could I just ask what camera where these shot with?. I am shocked by the huge difference between the shots, Is last shot a fish eye?Giving you a kind Hand.
'The stalker'
Helps me tremendiously
'The often Stalked'
Posted 20/04/2009 - 22:48
Link
camera K10 - uploaded the 2mp small jpegs that came with the RAW+ (couldn't be bothered developing)
Obviously on a tripod from the same spot.
The 12 and 10 mm shots are with the fish-eye DA10-17mm, so as RR was saying, very different from a rectilinear lens, like the Sigma 10-20, or others.
The angle of view is supposed to be 180 degrees on the diagonal.
Obviously on a tripod from the same spot.
The 12 and 10 mm shots are with the fish-eye DA10-17mm, so as RR was saying, very different from a rectilinear lens, like the Sigma 10-20, or others.
The angle of view is supposed to be 180 degrees on the diagonal.
Posted 20/04/2009 - 23:31
Link
No, I have looked already, However I would like it to be compared with something for comparison, against my sigma 28mm(obviously 42mm on cropped sensor)
The main reason for the wide angle are for family group portraits and wide angle landscape shots etc, However would be interestinfg to see the comparison with a normal wide angle lens as well
The main reason for the wide angle are for family group portraits and wide angle landscape shots etc, However would be interestinfg to see the comparison with a normal wide angle lens as well
Posted 21/04/2009 - 00:45
Link
foxycce wrote:
However I would like it to be compared with something for comparison, against my sigma 28mm(obviously 42mm on cropped sensor)
You still haven't quite grasped focal lengths yet I don't think (reading this thread again).However I would like it to be compared with something for comparison, against my sigma 28mm(obviously 42mm on cropped sensor)
If you're looking for a comparison between what you have at the moment (a 28-200 zoom), and a 10mm lens, then you need comparison shots at 10mm and 28mm. Forget about 42mm. It's irrelevant.
By the way, you will see a massive difference. If I had the time, and it wasn't 12.45am, I'd take a couple of shots to show you. Maybe tomorrow...
Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...
Posted 21/04/2009 - 08:41
Link
Quote:
The main reason for the wide angle are for family group portraits and wide angle landscape shots etc
You definitely do NOT want to do family portraits at 10mm The main reason for the wide angle are for family group portraits and wide angle landscape shots etc
In a rectilinear lens, the edges distort the geometry - so a square looks an odd oblong shape. (In this respect the fisheye are better - they curve, but a square still looks a square.)
The faces of people on the edges are distinctly odd if taken close.
The widest I'd go for a portrait group is 16mm (e.g. DA16-45, or my current DA17-70 )
And, as many have experienced, unless you have a truly impressive landscape, taking a shot at 10mm or 12mm can give an underwhelming shot. It takes a lot of practice and skill to get a really good super wide angle shot.
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 21/04/2009 - 08:48
Link
Here are two I took last year. Though not quite from the same spot they do show the difference between 10mm and 18mm.
[IMG]http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/Bargwynbu/Goosenecksweb1.jpg[/IMG]
@10mm with the Sigma 10-20mm
[IMG]http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/Bargwynbu/IMGP6543-web.jpg[/IMG]
@18mm with the Pentax kit lens.
[IMG]http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/Bargwynbu/Goosenecksweb1.jpg[/IMG]
@10mm with the Sigma 10-20mm
[IMG]http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c205/Bargwynbu/IMGP6543-web.jpg[/IMG]
@18mm with the Pentax kit lens.
Posted 21/04/2009 - 09:06
Link
The diagonal field of view of a 10mm rectilinear lens on a Pentax DSLR is 110.53 degrees
The diagonal field of view of a 20mm rectilinear lens on a Pentax DSLR is 71.59 degrees.
Checkout this site http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technology/fov.html
The diagonal field of view of a 20mm rectilinear lens on a Pentax DSLR is 71.59 degrees.
Checkout this site http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technology/fov.html
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.



168 posts
17 years
Ps thanks for the info its apriciated