I've seen some nice pics from this lens. W. Hamler's recent Hot Dog
Heaven is a prime, err... zoom example.
My question is related to its fishiness. I've heard that the lens is a
fisheye at 10mm, but loses its fishiness as you head towards 17mm, so
that it looks like a rectilinear at 17mm.
Hi!
I've seen some nice pics from this lens. W. Hamler's recent Hot Dog
Heaven is a prime, err... zoom example.
My question is related to its fishiness. I've heard that the lens is a
fisheye at 10mm, but loses its fishiness as you head towards 17mm, so
that it looks like a rectilinear
By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent.
Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the exact same position):
10mm
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5146_1.jpg
17mm
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5149.jpg
HTH
Dave
On 1/6/07, Gonz [EMAIL
Well, I disagree with Dave. The lens is still quite
fishy at 17mm, and if you look at the curvature in
the buildings, trees, and road in the second pic, you
can see it easily.
It's a great lens. I enjoyed the 17-28 so much on my
(P)Z-1p that I asked for the 10-17 for my birthday,
and got it.
I can see a slight amount in the tree building but none in the road.
I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my
archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious fishiness. So
I'm withdrawing my pretty much non-existent comment. Funnily enough
almost all the
Makes you wish you had that prototype 8mm fisheye that never made it to
market huh?
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see a slight amount in the tree building but none in the road.
I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my
archive for another shot at 17mm
Here is another shot @ 17mm:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5211.jpg
Dave
On 1/6/07, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see a slight amount in the tree building but none in the road.
I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my
archive
Thanks Dave. I dont see much distortion at 17mm, but its hard to tell
since there are not many lines to allow a clear conclusion.
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By 17mm the distortion is pretty much non-existent.
Here are a couple of examples of mine (taken in the exact same position):
I got the lens for a specific project that ended up not happening.
(360 degree QT VR panos of a ship's interior).
Cheers,
Dave
On 1/6/07, Gonz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Makes you wish you had that prototype 8mm fisheye that never made it to
market huh?
rg
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On 1/05/07 1:57 PM, David Savage, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see a slight amount in the tree building but none in the road.
I think I picked a bad example. I've just gone and searched through my
archive for another shot at 17mm and it displays obvious fishiness. So
I'm withdrawing my
Hi Gonz,
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:38:39 -0600, Gonz wrote:
I've seen some nice pics from this lens. W. Hamler's recent Hot Dog
Heaven is a prime, err... zoom example.
My question is related to its fishiness. I've heard that the lens is a
fisheye at 10mm, but loses its fishiness as you head
Aha, thats a better example. Thanks.
rg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is another shot @ 17mm:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/Images/IMGP5211.jpg
Dave
On 1/6/07, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see a slight amount in the tree building but none in the road.
I
On 1/05/07 2:28 PM, David Savage, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the lens for a specific project that ended up not happening.
(360 degree QT VR panos of a ship's interior).
Oh, you did it again to me! :-).
I love ships and always wanted to make it one of my themes. Moving into an
urban condo,
13 matches
Mail list logo
