canon 8-15mm fisheye

[aalex]

hello everyone! i would like to ask for feedback from anybody who own this lens on full frame camera? thanks in advance

[Tannin]

I don't own one, Aalex, and I'd barely even bother keeping one if you gave it to me for nothing. This lens was a dreadful idea from start to finish. The only type of camera it works properly on without massive vignetting is an APS-C crop body like a 7D or a 550D. With full frame bodies like the 5D II and APS-H bodies like the 1D IV, you have a very, very limited zoom range before it vignettes.

Properly designed, a fisheye zoom is a truly wonderful lens to own and use. Unfortunately, there are only two such lenses made today and neither one can be used on Canon's full frame cameras. The Pentax only works on Pentax APS-C bodies, and the essentially identical Tokina 10-17 works on Canon, Nikon, and possibly some other brand APS-C bodies, and also (with minor limitations) on Canon APS-H bodies like a 1D III. It isn't suitable for full-frame.

If you want the functionality of a proper fisheye zoom, the only way to get it in Canon is with a crop body such as a 7D and the excellent Tokina 10-17. Well, you could use a 7D and the Canon one as it only vignettes through part of the range on crop, but why would you want to?

[aalex]

hi Tony thanks for the reply. Actually I am looking for wide angle or fisheye lens for my ff camera. I am thinking of either this zoom lens as it is quite special based on reviews, or a prime 20, 24 or 28mm would be adequate you think? Currently I have 24-105 L ,50mm 1.8. and 100mm L macro

[Tannin]

Cheers Alex.

Well, as you have doubtless gathered, I have severe doubts about this lens. On full-frame, it is not a zoom at all, not in practical terms. You can use it at 14-15mm where I'm sure it is excellent, but from there on all the way down through 13mm, 12mmn, 11mm, 10mm, and 9mm it isn't even a (dubiously useful) circular fisheye, it's a weird mixed-up thing which only makes pictures with massive black corners. Hopeless! Then, at 8mm, it becomes a circular fisheye - a silly toy lens that you might (or might not) want to use once a decade.

So in the end, you wind up with a large, very expensive 15mm fisheye prime. For the same money you could buy a vastly more versatile Tokina 10-17 and a 60D to use it on. If you want a fish, that's your best answer.

But you say you want something wide for a Canon FX camera. There is a number of primes, both fisheye and rectilinear, all of which are doubtless fine lenses and just as useful as the Canon quasi-zoom at a lower price, but I'm reluctant to recommend any prime for UWA work. Why give up the flexibility of a zoom where there is no real advantage? In the normal range (50mmish, say), or the telephoto range, primes offer faster apertures and much better control over depth of field, not to mention a tiny sharpness advantage and often lower weight and cost. But these are side issues - it's the fast aperture which makes primes attractive. In wide and ultra-wide, your depth of field is massive anyway, no matter how fast your lens is, so the biggest advantage of a prime does not apply. In short, go for a zoom every time.

There are no FF fisheye zooms, and in any case, most people would prefer a rectilinear lens if it is their only ultrra-wide, so we should look at those. There are only four: The cheap, solid, well-regarded Canon 17-40/4; the expensive but very well-regarded Canon 16-35/2.8; the new and very nice looking Tokina 16-28/2.8 which is great value for money and well made with good optics but very heavy and a bit short, and the 12-24mm Sigma, which is incredibly wide but not all that sharp. (There is a new model now, maybe it's better? I don't know.)

One of those four is your best answer. Which one? I'm still trying to decide myself.

PS: those primes you are thinking about are quite different animals and worth considering in a different way. But I have to go. Later.

[mikec]

hi Tony thanks for the reply. Actually I am looking for wide angle or fisheye lens for my ff camera. I am thinking of either this zoom lens as it is quite special based on reviews, or a prime 20, 24 or 28mm would be adequate you think? Currently I have 24-105 L ,50mm 1.8. and 100mm L macro

The problem is wide angle and fish eye are too very different things and you won't get a lens that does both.

Tannin has done a good job naming all the possibilities.

If you really want a fish, I've heard good report of the 15mm Sigma. Canon also does a 15mm fish but apparently it isn't as good as the Sigma. I wouldn't confuse the choice by looking at the 14mm L series by Canon though, again very different.

I think you perhaps need to decide what you actually want to achieve image wise which will then let you decide what lens type to look at eg. fish / wide.

Looking at your current lenses though I'd be looking at a wide angle since fish eye is pretty specialised and won't be that useful on many occasions IMO.

[William W]

Actually I am looking for wide angle or fisheye lens for my ff camera. I am thinking ofeither this zoom lens as it is quite special based on reviews, or a prime 20,24 or 28mm would be adequate you think? Currently I have 24-105 L ,50mm 1.8.and 100mm L macro

I think you need to explain better: What it is you want to achieve?

As mentioned a Fisheye Eye Lens is an entirely different animal to a Wide Angle Lens.
I own an EF8 to 15F/4L and is a Magnificent Lens and it delivers exactly all it was designed to achieve – and then some.

It is a very worthwhile purchase: IF you understand and also then want, the functionality it provides.

The AOV (Angle of View) does NOT change considerably as the lens is zoomed.
But what does change is the rendition of Full Frame Fisheye to the Circular Fisheye.
Re-iterating this is FISHEYE ZOOM LENS and NOT a Wide Angle ZOOM LENS.

And therefore, obviously, when used on a FF Camera this zoom lens will Optically Vignette as it moves from approximately FL = 14mm toward the FL = 8mm.
At FL = 8mm it is a perfect Circular Fisheye Lens (for a FF Camera).
By definition, therefore: there will be Optical Vignette.

This lens might not be a useful purchase for most Photographers – but do not assume that it does not deliver what it was designed to deliver – it is an exceptional lens – even as a 15mm Fisheye it is superior in every aspect (except it is one stop slower) to the EF15/2.8, another Fisheye Lens, which I also own.



WW

[aalex]

Thanks guys! I have narrowed my search to go for either 15mm sigma or 15mm canon. As mentioned above, canon would cost me a fortune but this sigma costs much less. IQ wise, it seems debatable still. Anybody has both for comparison or either one to share their experience? Much appreciated

[William W]

Thanks guys! I have narrowed my search to go for either 15mm sigma or 15mm canon. . . Anybody has both for comparison or either one to share their experience? Much appreciated

I am more than happy with my EF15 F/2.8 Fisheye.
I use it on FF (and also APS-C) cameras.
I often crop to a widescreen format, especially when used on FF Cameras.

E.G.

AIS Pool - Canberra
©WMW, AJ Group Aust Pty Ltd


The lens handles Flare quite well, considering the intrinsic failures of a Fisheye design, regarding Flare Resistance.

E.G. Frames five and six of this picture story - (Frame three is also shot with this lens.):

“Five Training Daze – A Picture Story”
©WMW, AJ Group Aust Pty Ltd


I have no hesitation using the lens wide open and wide open the corners are quite sharp.
It is a very solid lens and I find it useful for many applications, especially using Available Light, indoors. I have used it for specialty application for Wedding Assignments

The lens cap is not “locked” and tends to drop off easily, but in my case I have remedied this by squishing the lens cap a tad (it is metal) to make a snugger fit.
The lens’s design is quite old – but that does not mean it is past its use-by date.

Is the Canon EF15F/2.8 Fisheye still now available new?
Not that I have looked recently – but you might just be comparing the price of a new Sigma to a second hand Canon . . .

I have not used the Sigma Lens.

WW

[fabian628]

from memory the sigma lens is a bit more expensive than the canon second hand. the 15mm fisheye is a nice lens, i thought it would be a one trick pony, but I actually use it quite alot, and can take very normal, non-fosheye looking pictures when it wants.

[Fedgrub]

I was in your situation just a little while ago actually. I decided to get the Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye over the Canon 8-15mm for my FF because like others have mentioned, the Canon is not actually a zoom. It alternates between a circular fisheye and diagonal fisheye effect. The circular IMO looks absolutely horrible and I can't imagine any situation where it would look good. At 15mm the Canon looks the same as the Sigma (diagonal fisheye), so if you are comparing the 15mm ranges the Sigma is much cheaper.

I've been happy with my Sigma. It's sharp and has a good level of distortion, and lens correction in most situations gives a nice wide angle without the distortion. It overexposes the highlights outdoors, but this can easily be fixed in Lightroom or Photoshop.

[phild]

+1 for the EF15mm f2.8 Canon Fisheye (on FF), wonderful lens, compact and light as a feather and very sharp. Won't take front filters though. It also has significant coma at the edges so it's not ideal for Astrophotography.
Personally I favour Canon over Sigma, you are less likely to get a bad copy of a Canon lens.