Well done. I am never in the right position when rainbows appear llike that!

This is very true. Just look at the prices being obtained for M and A series lenses on eBay and then compare them with independent lenses. The Pentax ones always sell, often sell at good prices. The others get very little interest unless they are certain specific highly-valued lenses.

Love the cat.

Good question, but I think you've mis-read me. The purpose of the fisheye was the ability to move close and still have a staggeringly wide field of view. It isn't software that can de-fisheye the result, but careful placement of objects in the frame so that nothing gives away the bending effect. It's still there, but especially in woodland it's possible to compose to disguise the curved lines.

Tip the lens and all is instantly revealed.

So no software involved at all in this.

As for why, it's to create and utilise the ultra ultra wide angle for creative purposes. And sometimes it's to get that fisheye effect, but if we keep on doing that it just gets boring!

I've been using the 10-17mm for a while now and I must say I am very impressed by its optical quality, including its excellent control of flare, which is particularly important with such a wide angle of view.

The construction quality is also excellent and inspires confidence.

I am using the lens for a variety of landscape and architectural purposes and I'm very pleased with the way that it can be used to produce very wide landscapes with little apparent distortion, even when buildings are included. Of course, tilt the lens and the world goes haywire, as we would expect. The key to distortion free shots is very careful composition that hides the fisheye effect. This is great in woods and forests.

I did wonder if this would be ab expensive and seldom used gimmick, but it's not. It's as useful a lens as any other and broadens the possible repertoire of shots available.

I was thinking about that image and I reckon that you could get the same effect by using the 12-24mm lens. Actually rather better probably as the straight line of the horizon would be naturally straight. I'm not sure you need a 10-17mm for that shot.

Fisheye lenses are not the easiest to use, so a lot of experimentation is a good thing.

#1 1/1000sec f8 ISO 200 shot at around noon today. Darkened in Photoshop to add the mood.

#2 1/6sec f8 ISO 200 Only adjusted with Levels.

#3 1/90sec f8 ISO 200 Texture added via Filters>Texturiser>Sandstone

#4 1/125sec f8 ISO 200. Because the sun was very strong on the left of the image I used the right hand side flipped to even out the density. Go to Open>New and create a blank canvas to put the images in. Then select half of the image required using the Rectangular Marquee Tool. Ctrl+J will copy this area. Use the Move Tool to drag this copy into the blank canvas.

Then hit Ctrl+J again to copy the image in the canvas. Use Transform>Flip Horizontal to flip it and then the Move Tool to move the second image into register with the first. You can do this a pixel at a time using the up and down arrow keys, for perfect register. Then flatten the image and crop the area required, ready for resizing for print or web.

When you initially create the blank canvas it's a good idea to make it a suitable size ready to take the images that you are going to move into it. I generally make an A3 canvas to give plenty of room for the images. If the image is too small or too big when you drag it in you can easily change it using Ctrl+T to being up a Transform box.

Hope that helps. It takes ages to explain, but only seconds to do!

Today was the day we had some time, so we went up to Elterwater and tried out the 10-17mm. First some pictures, then a few comments:













I liked the lens a lot, it was great fun to use and seems to be sharp and contrasty. Chromatic abberation is well controlled in the ventre of the field but present in the outer areas. Perhaps with such a wide coverage this is not too surprising. It will be obvious to those who photograph trees against sky, but with many subjects will not be a problem.

I'm very happy with the purchase and the lens will get a fair bit of use.

It's a fisheye with 180 degrees coverage at 10mm that does tend to straighten out as you zoom towards 17mm. But there's no way it ends up anything like rectilinear. This lens is a similar concept to ther previous fisheye zoom for film cameras (17-28mm).

If you need straight lines, the 12-24mm is the one.

Not yet I' sorry to say - too many things to do and too little time....

Soon...