All Forum Comments
Comment by Bokeh Bob posted on SMC Pentax-DA Fish-Eye 10-17, pure eye candy at 16/03/2006 - 04:04
My experience with extension tubes is that you need a flat-field lens like a bellows lens to keep the corners sharp. Also, the field of view is so narrow you almost have to shoot at F 11 or higher because you lose light the longer you extend the lens.
Probably better to stick w/ a good 1:1 macro. I'm using an FA 50 2.8 which has a true flat field (using curved lens elements, go figger). It also works as a decent standard lens equiv to about an 80mm, I've had good results with the iStd.
Here's a tip for copying your old negs and slides: I grabbed an old SMC auto bellows with the slide holder. You mount the whole thing on a tripod and point it up against a white wall. Use the pop-up TTL to get a perfect exposure every time. The mag factor works in your favour to really fill the frame. But there again, you need a flat field lens to get the best results.
Good luck!
Probably better to stick w/ a good 1:1 macro. I'm using an FA 50 2.8 which has a true flat field (using curved lens elements, go figger). It also works as a decent standard lens equiv to about an 80mm, I've had good results with the iStd.
Here's a tip for copying your old negs and slides: I grabbed an old SMC auto bellows with the slide holder. You mount the whole thing on a tripod and point it up against a white wall. Use the pop-up TTL to get a perfect exposure every time. The mag factor works in your favour to really fill the frame. But there again, you need a flat field lens to get the best results.
Good luck!
Comment by Bokeh Bob posted on Going Macro at 16/03/2006 - 04:35
Hi, I have the FA version of that lens (manual focus, right?)
Not that it makes much difference. Macro is mostly manual focus anyway. I'm not sure what the added mag factor is (1.5 times?) but it works in your favour. I use it for flower shots and even as a decent standard lens when I travel because it's small and light. I'll leave my 85/1.4 at home if I have to, but not the 50/2.8.
I also do copy work transferring my old negs and slides to RAW, and the flat field is essential. My repros look better than the originals IMHO.
Not that it makes much difference. Macro is mostly manual focus anyway. I'm not sure what the added mag factor is (1.5 times?) but it works in your favour. I use it for flower shots and even as a decent standard lens when I travel because it's small and light. I'll leave my 85/1.4 at home if I have to, but not the 50/2.8.
I also do copy work transferring my old negs and slides to RAW, and the flat field is essential. My repros look better than the originals IMHO.
Comment by Bokeh Bob posted on Pentax-A 50mm f2.8 macro at 16/03/2006 - 04:51
I have that same rig and the problem is that you have to use a flat-field lens like a bellows lens to keep the corners sharp and maintain proper perspective, which is absolutely critical for good copy work. You can't really use any kind of wide angle and get good results. I use a 50 mm macro. You can extend it or not, but I've managed to achieve full frame w/ no probs. If you extend, you can start cropping in the frame. You have to jigger with it, but it works well.
Here's a tip: face a white wall and use the TTL popup to get perfect exposure. Works like a damn. I also hook the camera up to the 'pootah and automate the process straight into photoshop. Only like, 20,000 more negs to go!
Here's a tip: face a white wall and use the TTL popup to get perfect exposure. Works like a damn. I also hook the camera up to the 'pootah and automate the process straight into photoshop. Only like, 20,000 more negs to go!
Comment by Bokeh Bob posted on Using bellows with the *istDS at 16/03/2006 - 05:11


First a bit of background: I previously owned the 17-28 this lens replaces. That is actually one of the top 10 lenses ever made by anybody for its unique design. But I lost the 180 field of view when I switched to the *iStd because of the 1.5 mag factor. Still wound up using it lots, but it's more equiv to a 24-35 than a true fish-eye.
That said, the DA is even better than the original. Meshes with the camera flawlessly and focusing is a dream. The images were all clean and sharp with excellent tonal characteristics. The ED optics are fantastic, on par with any star *FA lens.
You control the amount of barrel distortion by zooming in or out. At 17mm, which is equiv to about 24mm for us oldtimers, lines are nice and straight making it suitable for group shots or architecture where you want rectilinear control.
Open it up to 10mm and that's when the fun begins. Pure eye candy. This is a true fish-eye in all its psychedelic splendour. Don't stare through the viewfinder too long, you'll blow your mind.
Coolest thing about this lens is its close-focusing ability. (Maybe cos it doesn't have an aperture ring?) Get down to mere centimetres for some hideously twisted perspective. Everyday objects are transformed. Keystoning to the max. Gobs of bokeh, very cool vibe.
But I also like to use the FE for landscapes -- ie, F-29 infinity long exposure on a pod -- and this one fits the bill. It's nice and light for traveling and it doesn't feel like it would smash to pieces if I dropped it. The build is very nice and smooth, the focus ring is superb. My only complaint is that the zoom mechanism could be a little more damped, but that might be the one I got. I notice its "assembled in Vietnam".
Worth the price? I got my DA for less than what I payed for my 17-28 two years ago and I really think it's twice the lens. Covers the short range quite well. The fact that it's a zoom makes it all the more useful when you're tired of staring through a fish bowl.
If you're shooting digital, do it. It's a necessity, really. You can go without food for a month.