Lets see pictures of the Tokina 10-17mm Fisheye!

I am on the fence wondering if I should even bother with the Tokina AT-X 10-17mm F 3.5-4.5 DX Fish-Eye lens. I have read the quality seems to be pretty good so I am looking for POTN users with this lens to show me their examples why I should buy this glass.

I like to know too!

You know, I've briefly tried out the Tokina 10-17 and the Pentax 10-17 and compared to a 10mm end of the ultrawide, it's not much wider and the distortion limits its diversity.

Seeing as you already have a 10-22, I'm not sure it's worth it. I was thinking about trading in the 10-20 for it, but after trying it out, I gave up on that idea.

The corner-to-corner angular field of rectilinear and fish-eye 10mm lenses on a 1.6x crop body is 108 and 180 degrees respectively. That seems quite a big difference to me. You have to decide for yourself about the acceptability of the curvilinear distortion though.

Hi Tee Why,

Tee Why wrote in post #2998941
You know, I've briefly tried out the Tokina 10-17 and the Pentax 10-17 and compared to a 10mm end of the ultrawide, it's not much wider and the distortion limits its diversity.

Seeing as you already have a 10-22, I'm not sure it's worth it. I was thinking about trading in the 10-20 for it, but after trying it out, I gave up on that idea.

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. There is a tremendous difference between the two - I have both. The 10 mm on the 10-22 rectilinear zoom has an AoV, diagonally, of 107.5 degrees, the Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom gets to 180 degrees diagonal, plus, it has a fisheye type projection.

Just compare the two following pictures, first the Tokina, at 10 mm, closest focusing distance:

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Here is a similar thread.

https://photography-on-the.net …22&highlight=to​kina+10-17

i want one bad.

wimg wrote in post #2999842
Hi Tee Why,

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. There is a tremendous difference between the two - I have both. The 10 mm on the 10-22 rectilinear zoom has an AoV, diagonally, of 107.5 degrees, the Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom gets to 180 degrees diagonal, plus, it has a fisheye type projection.

Just compare the two following pictures, first the Tokina, at 10 mm, closest focusing distance:


And here is the 10-22 at 10 mm:

As you can see there si quite a difference in AoV, and in distortion. The wings and body of the plane are still shown at the correct angles, while the pergola parts in the top of the fisheye picture, although they are at right angles, are totally bent.

BTW, the flare and ghosting in the plane pic was deliberate; this has become a lot less now I uses B&W MRC filters rather than Canon UV Sharp Cut filters, although the effect was deliberate here, and in the fisheye pic the front of the flower was actually touching the front element of the lens!

Kind regards, Wim

Kind of hard to tell anything with 2 such different shots. I would really like to see this comparison done with both at 10 mm, same f stop, and same subject.

Wimg,
I don't disagree with you at all. The fisheye is a different beast than an ultrawide zoom. I've had a Sigma 15mm on a 1DMII for a while myself. To me, it's a specialty lens for specific shots. I generally don't think of fisheyes being interchangable to an ultrawide.
I'm just not sure it's worth $570 or so to me, that's all.

My buddy was nice enough to take some similar shots for comparison with his Pentax 10-17fish vs a sigma 10-20.
Take a look here.
http://www.pbase.com/a​linla/1017_vs_1020

for taking landscape shots, the distortion bothers me, for taking trick shots where distortion is used for dramatic effects, the fisheye is very unique.

I think the reason some people are surprised there is not more difference is that all the difference (apart from the distortion) is at the corners. Because both are 10mm, the central part of the image is actually exactly the same.

Hi Doc,

rklepper wrote in post #3000476
Kind of hard to tell anything with 2 such different shots. I would really like to see this comparison done with both at 10 mm, same f stop, and same subject.

The idea was to show the difference in projection; the straight lines with the UWA vs the bent lines with the fisheye, plus the much wider viewing angle.

I'll try to make a few comparison shots in the next few days ahead; same subject, same distance .

Kind regards, Wim

Hi Mark,

Madweasel wrote in post #3001218
I think the reason some people are surprised there is not more difference is that all the difference (apart from the distortion) is at the corners. Because both are 10mm, the central part of the image is actually exactly the same.

No, it isn't. Everything is distorted with a fisheye. Just at first glance the center may look the same.

Kind regards, Wim

Hi Tee Why,

Tee Why wrote in post #3000659
Wimg,
I don't disagree with you at all. The fisheye is a different beast than an ultrawide zoom. I've had a Sigma 15mm on a 1DMII for a while myself. To me, it's a specialty lens for specific shots. I generally don't think of fisheyes being interchangable to an ultrawide.
I'm just not sure it's worth $570 or so to me, that's all.

Well, if you need a fisheye, there is not a lot of choice, certainly not for APS-C. I don't particularly like to crop the black corners from a circular FF fisheye, I'd rather have a proper 180 degrees diagonally. And it so happens that the Tokina is a great choice, IMO, for all formats.

My buddy was nice enough to take some similar shots for comparison with his Pentax 10-17fish vs a sigma 10-20.
Take a look here.
http://www.pbase.com/a​linla/1017_vs_1020

for taking landscape shots, the distortion bothers me, for taking trick shots where distortion is used for dramatic effects, the fisheye is very unique.

Thank you for sharing that link, it makes the differences much easier to see than they are in my sample shots.
I'll try to do a few defishes in the next few weeks, and share them here. With a fisheye shot defished, you get the widest rectilinear shots possible with any lens , with relatively little vignetting.

Kind regards, Wim

You want to see pictures of the lens?

Anyway, here's one taken with a 1D Mark II at 12mm:

Here's a landscape of the Washington Monument from the WWII memorial with the Toki10-17. I just bought this lens a few days ago... I like it, but I don't see the pactically of having this as your sole UWA lens. I was contemplating on exchanging this with the 10-20, but I think having both in the bag would be better. Can't always use the FE for wide shots...
Another thing to add... I did get a little wider @ the 10mm range with the Toki vs the Canon.