The 10-17 will give you a curvilinear image. That's nice for certain subjects. Essentially, it's a special effect, a distortion. The 12-24 is much closer to rectilinear. It will give you a conventional wide view with much less distortion. You can "defish" a curvilinear image, but you lose something in the process, and it's an extra step. If you want to shoot room interiors, car interiors, or anything else that has to be rendered somewhat faithfully, you'd be better off with the 12-24. A couple of shots: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4797891 http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4895914&size=lg http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4003362&size=lg
Some perspective correction on these, particularly the bedroom shot. I find it to be a very good and useful lens. Paul On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:09 PM, Axel Belinfante wrote: > my fisheye-like zenitar k2.8/16 no longer is very wide on the k10d, > so I'm considering something wider. > after the zenitar my current widest is 28mm (FA* 28-70/2.8, M-28/2.8), > but I'm pretty sure I'll fall for the 16-50 DA* (and the 50-135) > when I see one available nearby (hopefully soon :-). > > for the wider angle I'm considering DA 10-17 and the DA 12-24, > and I'm trying to appreciate the difference between them, > in particular for the fov that they share. any opinions? > there wouldn't be any sample shots out there that compare them? > (I cannot image there are none, but I tried to find without succes) > > not so long ago william rob (happy birthday!) wrote: >> I ended up doing the same thing. I bought the 14, found it wasn't >> wide enough, so I bought the 10-17. While I found it to be wide >> enough, >> I never really got the hang of defishing, so I bought the 12-24 >> for those times when the 14 wasn't wide enough, but i didn't need >> the fov of the 10mm. > > reading the above makes me feel I should get both and compare... :-) > > I'm also hoping either would fit in a usable (travel) kit > (to return to that thread of a while ago; I'll be visiting nyc > for a couple of days in early december so I should be enabled > as it seems you say here :-) > > I'm thinking of > 10-17 or 12-24, DA* 16-50/2.8, DA* 50-135/2.8, 50/1.4 > a 2x converter if it works with the DA* 50-135 I don't own yet. > I'm not sure about carry-ing the FA* 80-200/2.8 around. > > anyway, so much for LBA ideas, have to see what happens, > Axel. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
