I asked about using an A-16mm and Peter Ailing wrote and I tended to agree:
I have no experience with this lens on the *ist-d but the 17mm fisheye shows enough distortion to look like a 24mm lens with extremely bad barrel distortion. It's neither fish nor fowl. I wouldn't invest for that sole purpose. The lens itself has a great reputation for what it is and on a 35mm camera I'd love to have it, but not for the *ist-d. (Just my opinion but you may not mind barrel distortion). Mark Stringer wrote: What is known about the Pentax SMC-A 16/2.8? Any opinions? It is a fisheye. On an istD would the fisheye be as extreme as on film?----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 9:26 AM Subject: Re: enabled twice over! > > It depends on your goal, but all-in-all you'll find that the cropped center > of an FE can't compete with a good rectilinear lens. Looking through the > gallery on Pbase, the digital shots are mildly distorted, enough to suggest > a bad lens rather than a fish-eye effect. > > In my initial query to Amita I was looking for creative ways others have > used the extreme FE effect (on film or FF digital) to really add to the > image beyond the superficial goofiness. Not that the goofiness is bad, but I > already have another 180° rectilinear wide-angle that I can use to get plain > vanilla wide shots. > > For example, some of the shots here where made with the Zenitar: > > <http://www.arinahnell.com/01-04-04/index.htm> > > This was the point I made in a separate thread about choosing the MZ-S over > the *istD: The crop factor is something I don't like, so I'm waiting for a > FF digital solution, which, I admit, may be a ways off and will be > expensive. But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. > > Tim > > On 12/2/04 5:44, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > The idea of using only the central portion of the fisheye seems like a good > > way to go with a camera like the istd. Still, I'd like to see some pics > > comparing this lens (and the Zenitar) with similar focal length rectilinear > > lenses, like the Pentax 14mm, 15mm, and the 16mm side of that zoom (16~45?) > > that's available for the istd. > > > > Shel > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> He's saying that on the ist D you are only > >> using the central portion of the fisheyes > >> image circle where the effect is the least. > >> This reduces the 'fisheye' effect and the > >> results look more like a distorted WA shot > >> than a true fisheye shot. > >> I'm just now playing with the Zenitar > >> 16/2.8. > >> If I compose carefully the shot looks like > >> a very WA shot with little fisheye effect. > >> On a 35mm this would not be the case. > >> > >> Don > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>> What's your point? > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>>> The large majority of photos in the sample were shot with digital > >>>> cameras that produce between a 1.3 to 1.7 crop factor. When you take > >>>> that into account the fisheye doesn't show much line bending at all > >>>> since you've taken only the center portion of the image. > > > >>>>> http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/15_28_ex > >>>>> > >>>>> There are 674 of them. Have fun. :) > > > > > > > > > >
