canon Fisheye Lens for APSC 70d Body -

[clearzoom]

I see these choices but not sure what FL we get 70d being a 1.5x crop body

1) Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye Lens , about $600/

so would we get 22mm in 70d, then it wont be Fisheye at 22 mm

2)Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye Lens

This one, says it is designed for APSC, so should be 10mm

3) Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Lens - ONLY used for about $600-$750

same 22mm and fisheye ?

3) Rokinon 8mm F2.8 but MF

 

[R2D2]

I see these choices but not sure what FL we get 70d being a 1.5x crop body

The 1.6x multiplier still applies to ultra wide angle lenses, both rectilinear and fisheye (though due to variances in design, the formula is only approximate).

1) Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG Diagonal Fisheye Lens , about $600/

so would we get 22mm in 70d, then it wont be Fisheye at 22 mm

You'd get about 24mm. It'd still be classified as a fisheye though (due to its design, not its FOV).

2)Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye Lens

This one, says it is designed for APSC, so should be 10mm

Means that it will only fit on a crop-sensor camera (not full frame). FOV equiv is about 16mm.

3) Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Lens - ONLY used for about $600-$750

same 22mm and fisheye ?

Use the multiplier here too.

3) Rokinon 8mm F2.8 but MF

Good bang for the buck, but it's bare bones. It's f/3.5 BTW. Get the updated lens with the removable hood (not the older model).

I have the aforementioned Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye, and it is an excellent lens. AF is superb (70D), and it's very sharp wide open. Here are a couple of "fun" images...

[IMG width="400px" alt="Click "Original" to view larger images..."]http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/image/155181644/original.jpg[/IMG]
Click "Original" to view larger images...

These are just to illustrate the IQ and AF potential. Do love this lens.

But you have to make sure you want the fisheye "look" for your group shots, scenics, architectural, etc. Otherwise mebbe look at the new 10-18 STM (rectilinear).

Happy hunting!

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[curlyone]

Hi ClearZOOM, You need to bite the bullet, get the plastic card out of your wallet, maybe moths too, and buy the Canon 8 - 15 mm F4 zoom lens, perfect for the job, cheers.

 

[clearzoom]

I have the aforementioned Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye, and it is an excellent lens. AF is superb (70D), and it's very sharp wide open. Here are a couple of "fun" images...

These are just to illustrate the IQ and AF potential. Do love this lens.

But you have to make sure you want the fisheye "look" for your group shots, scenics, architectural, etc. Otherwise mebbe look at the new 10-18 STM (rectilinear).

Happy hunting!

R2

thks R2. nice images, real great IQ and like teh bokeh bg for thsi FL

i have the Nex 16mm+UWA(fisheye) - way too wide and poor IQ, so looking for Fish eye, not 8 or 10mm.

from 12-16mm, so closest one is sigma 10m and canon 15mm

 

[clearzoom]

Hi ClearZOOM, You need to bite the bullet, get the plastic card out of your wallet, maybe moths too, and buy the Canon 8 - 15 mm F4 zoom lens, perfect for the job, cheers.

he . I saw that in amazon and pretend like I didnt see after looking at prcei tag, but I know the IQ of L lens as I use them at tele end

 

[clearzoom]

But you have to make sure you want the fisheye "look" for your group shots, scenics, architectural, etc. Otherwise mebbe look at the new 10-18 STM (rectilinear).

Happy hunting!

R2

how the iq of new Canon EF-S 10-18 STM (rectilinear) lens, this is rare wide angle FL that's hard to find at this price, $299

or is this a MF lens or AF

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX for Canon

it has 2.8 vs canon's 4.5-5.6 but canon is much wider range, 10-18

 

[The outfitter]

When it comes to fisheyes, focal length really doesn't matter all that much - at least not that we can make sense of it.

In 35mm days, there were two kinds of fisheye lenses - circular image and full frame.

Circular image lenses covered 180 degrees in a full circle to the right, left, top and bottom of the photographer. Apparently they were developed for photographing the whole sky when pointed straight up - helpful to meteorologists before they had weather radar. Those lenses leave a big black border in the corners.

Full frame fisheyes only get to 180 degrees in the corners, but there are no black areas. These lenses are considered more useful to most of us.

The old circular image lenses had focal lengths in the 8mm to 10mm range - but all could cover 180 degrees. Apparently there were differences in how quickly the image would bulge when going outward from the centre. Nikon even had a 6mm lens that could cover 220 degrees - looking slightly back over your shoulder.

Full frame 180 degree lenses were marketed in focal lengths usually from 15mm to 18mm - even when the manufacturer had rectilinear lenses with shorter focal lengths in the catalogue (but they don't get to 180 degrees). So focal length may have been determined by some technical measurement, but all that matters to us is the degrees coverage.

Nowadays, with two main DSLR sensor sizes, we get confused more easily. But all that matters in the end is the degrees coverage.

A fisheye designed for full frame (ie: the Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye) won't offer much more than a badly distorted wide angle on an APSC sensor.

So, Canon's answer is a dual purpose lens - the 8-15mm L. At 8mm you get a 180 degree circular image on full frame and a 180 degree corner-to-corner image on APSC. At 15mm you get the corner to corner on a full frame camera, and that bulgy wide angle on APSC.

Are we confused yet? It makes a lot more sense to see it in use.

 

[clearzoom]

A fisheye designed for full frame (ie: the Canon 15mm 2.8 fisheye) won't offer much more than a badly distorted wide angle on an APSC sensor.

That's good answer for 15mm, so I dont have to get this one.

So, Canon's answer is a dual purpose lens - the 8-15mm L. At 8mm you get a 180 degree circular image on full frame and a 180 degree corner-to-corner image on APSC. At 15mm you get the corner to corner on a full frame camera, and that bulgy wide angle on APSC.

Are we confused yet? It makes a lot more sense to see it in use.

of course I agree the last point, I feel better when i use it,I have a second thought and leaning towards just wide angle rather than fisheye, which I use only 10%

WA could be 30-40% in travel

 

[R2D2]

I have a second thought and leaning towards just wide angle rather than fisheye, which I use only 10%

WA could be 30-40% in travel

Yes, it's definitely a "small percentage" lens, but images can pack a lot of "Wow" power. Here are some samples taken with the Sigma 10 to give you a better idea of the "look" I was talking about (check the other pages of the thread for more samples)...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=537750&page=17

Like all tools, it takes some time to get good with one. I love the way it forces you to "think outside the box."

R2

 

[clearzoom]

I have a second thought and leaning towards just wide angle rather than fisheye, which I use only 10%

WA could be 30-40% in travel

Yes, it's definitely a "small percentage" lens, but images can pack a lot of "Wow" power. Here are some samples taken with the Sigma 10 to give you a better idea of the "look" I was talking about (check the other pages of the thread for more samples)...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=537750&page=17

Like all tools, it takes some time to get good with one. I love the way it forces you to "think outside the box."

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

those images are really great and first 2 caught my eyes. But I am debating between WA vs Fisheye and hope decide in few days. thks for that review link

 

[clearzoom]

guys

if you can, pl comment about IS on this wide angle lens

Tokina 11-16mm f 2.8 pro dx II

Tokina 11-16mm f 2.8 pro dx II - need IS?

Tokina 11-16mm f 2.8 pro dx II - need IS? I am trying to decide a ultra wide angle and like to know what do we lose without IS, at this wide angle. I do intend to do hand held night shots right after sunset and would NON-IS be a problem then?

www.dpreview.com