Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L, 11-24mm f/4L

[Mystery Gardener]

I have the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L (a mighty fine 'retirement' gift). Still learning how to use it properly / effectively

Is there someone who has both the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM Fisheye and the 11-24mm f/4L? Or somebody in the know? I have a chance to get the 8-15 for a (somewhat) reasonable price. Would this lens be redundant seeing I have the 11-24? The examples I have seen seem to indicate they are two different animals (the 8-15 specifically states 'fisheye' and the images seem more spherical). I know there is 'de-fishing' SW that 'straightens' out the 8-15mm images. But I have not seen (good) SW that could 'fisheye' the 11-14 to emulate the 8-15 'spherical' look. Therefore, my logic seems to indicate I should pick up the 8-15. Any reasons you could provide to convince me (and the wife ;-) ) that I need this lens would be very helpful Actually, any opinions / input would be much appreciated.

Cheers, James

 

[PhotoKhan]

I have the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L (a mighty fine 'retirement' gift). Still learning how to use it properly / effectively

Is there someone who has both the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM Fisheye and the 11-24mm f/4L? Or somebody in the know? I have a chance to get the 8-15 for a (somewhat) reasonable price. Would this lens be redundant seeing I have the 11-24? The examples I have seen seem to indicate they are two different animals (the 8-15 specifically states 'fisheye' and the images seem more spherical). I know there is 'de-fishing' SW that 'straightens' out the 8-15mm images. But I have not seen (good) SW that could 'fisheye' the 11-14 to emulate the 8-15 'spherical' look. Therefore, my logic seems to indicate I should pick up the 8-15. Any reasons you could provide to convince me (and the wife ;-) ) that I need this lens would be very helpful Actually, any opinions / input would be much appreciated.

Cheers, James

 

[Kjeld Olesen]

Hi

I do not have the Canon 11-24, but do have the Sigma 12-24 EX as well as the Canon 8-15 mm fisheye. You certainly need both as the 8-15 mm lens enables much wider images, and in some cases software remapping will be the solution.

Here is an example of a 142° hAOV image converted to rectilinear from the 8-15 mm fisheye zoomed to 12 mm: http://acapixus.dk/software/rectfish/user_gallery/20150608_KjeldOlesen/201500608_KjeldOlesen.htm

 

[Mystery Gardener]

I have the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L (a mighty fine 'retirement' gift). Still learning how to use it properly / effectively

Is there someone who has both the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM Fisheye and the 11-24mm f/4L? Or somebody in the know? I have a chance to get the 8-15 for a (somewhat) reasonable price. Would this lens be redundant seeing I have the 11-24? The examples I have seen seem to indicate they are two different animals (the 8-15 specifically states 'fisheye' and the images seem more spherical). I know there is 'de-fishing' SW that 'straightens' out the 8-15mm images. But I have not seen (good) SW that could 'fisheye' the 11-14 to emulate the 8-15 'spherical' look. Therefore, my logic seems to indicate I should pick up the 8-15. Any reasons you could provide to convince me (and the wife ;-) ) that I need this lens would be very helpful Actually, any opinions / input would be much appreciated.

Cheers, James

In my view, the linearity of the 11-24 makes it a much more useful lens, one that fits well in a 4-zooms line up from 11mm up to either 200 or 400 mm.

The 8-15 is a "novelty" lens that can make for some quite engaging pictures but, if you make more than half a dozen in a set, it will quickly become cliché-boring.

You might notice, in that 8-15 user group, the number of users that felt the need to "defish" the photos in order to make them "work".

The only thing keeping me from getting the 11-24 is the price, which I find exorbitant.

OTOH, even at that moderate price, I find the 8-15 dispensable.

I don't think I would ever consider having the 2 of them (...although that might be because I already have that "novelty/cute" vector taken care of by my Rokinon 8mm f/2.8 for the "M" line)

This is my perspective and I hope it helps.

PK

 

[Mystery Gardener]

Hi

I do not have the Canon 11-24, but do have the Sigma 12-24 EX as well as the Canon 8-15 mm fisheye. You certainly need both as the 8-15 mm lens enables much wider images, and in some cases software remapping will be the solution.

Here is an example of a 142° hAOV image converted to rectilinear from the 8-15 mm fisheye zoomed to 12 mm: http://acapixus.dk/software/rectfish/user_gallery/20150608_KjeldOlesen/201500608_KjeldOlesen.htm

 

[gimp_dad]

Hi

I do not have the Canon 11-24, but do have the Sigma 12-24 EX as well as the Canon 8-15 mm fisheye. You certainly need both as the 8-15 mm lens enables much wider images, and in some cases software remapping will be the solution.

Here is an example of a 142° hAOV image converted to rectilinear from the 8-15 mm fisheye zoomed to 12 mm: http://acapixus.dk/software/rectfish/user_gallery/20150608_KjeldOlesen/201500608_KjeldOlesen.htm

 

[Mystery Gardener]

Thank you Kjeld. My confirmation bias has been met, sounds like I should get the 8-15mm ;-)

Cheers, James

Absolutely getting both is the right choice.

I have both. The 11-24 is an unbelievable lens. What it can do as a rectilinear lens going all the way to 11mm is unparalleled anywhere else. I don't think I would choose the fisheye if I could only have one.

That said, the 8-15 does have some advantages:

• Much wider 180 degree FOV (11-24 is "only" 117 degree horizontal field of view)
• Much lighter and smaller which can be useful for travel (11-24 is big)
• Even bigger vertical FOV advantage (180 vs 95 degrees)
• Once in a while you actually want that fisheye look (but not very often)

Night sky is an example where the FOV advantage can make an important difference. Try shooting the planets when 7 are visible. Usually only the fisheye can cover it whereas the 11-24 can't quite get all of the planets in one frame (at least the times I have tried it recently).

Same for Landscape + Milkyway shots. The huge vertical FOV makes it possible to get most of the visible MW "cloud" while also being in landscape orientation.

Meanwhile, if you are traveling light and using the fisheye, there is now pretty good post processing (depending on how much money and time you want to put into it) that will allow you to make it so you can't tell the shot was taken with a fisheye although there is always some trade-off between 100% field of view and complete distortion removal.

Thank you notPS_dad ;-) That is a very comprehensive list of reasons to get the 8-15mm.

A couple of your points resonate for me. Weight: the 11-24 weighs more than twice as much as the 8-15mm (for travelling light). And I actually want the fisheye look (or somewhere between rectilinier and fisheye, depends).

Perhaps I can convince the wife this would make a good early Christmas present

Cheers, James

 

[fritzli]

If you like pictures like these, get the 8-15. You will have to learn how to use it; I'm still learning.
Regards
Jonny

http://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Swiss/Heitenried/Heitenried-Spring-2014/

http://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Cities/Venezia/Venezia-IV/

http://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Cities/Night-Shots/Colmar/

--
http://www.jonnyfoto.ch - www.500px.com/jonnykopp - www.twitter.com/jonny_kopp

 

[Lee Jay]

I am actually looking for the 'novelty' look, I was wondering if you could create 8-15 'look' using the 11-24 (which I already have).

I have the 8-15L which I use on crop (7D Mark II). Most of my favorite images with it are not "novelty" images in my opinion even though they are mostly still in the fisheye projection.

I regularly use Lightroom's geometric slider but only at a small value (i.e. 30 out of 100 where 100 would be rectilinear). The ability to partially adjust the fisheye look is a major advantage of this lens over an ultrawide rectilinear. I have sold my rectilinear ultrawide lens because the fisheye is just way more useful to me. I can still shoot an ultrawide rectilinear (slider at 100, focal length at the longer end), but I can also shoot partially or fully in fisheye and shoot far wider than the 11-24 could ever come close to.

--
Lee Jay

 

[Mystery Gardener]

I am actually looking for the 'novelty' look, I was wondering if you could create 8-15 'look' using the 11-24 (which I already have).

I have the 8-15L which I use on crop (7D Mark II). Most of my favorite images with it are not "novelty" images in my opinion even though they are mostly still in the fisheye projection.

I regularly use Lightroom's geometric slider but only at a small value (i.e. 30 out of 100 where 100 would be rectilinear). The ability to partially adjust the fisheye look is a major advantage of this lens over an ultrawide rectilinear. I have sold my rectilinear ultrawide lens because the fisheye is just way more useful to me. I can still shoot an ultrawide rectilinear (slider at 100, focal length at the longer end), but I can also shoot partially or fully in fisheye and shoot far wider than the 11-24 could ever come close to.

--
Lee Jay

Thank you very much Lee Jay. Love your examples, they are the type of pics I hope to take one day (If one is going to reach, one might as well try to touch the sky ;-) )

Cheers, James

--
'The question is not what you look at, but what you see'
Thoreau

 

[Mystery Gardener]

If you like pictures like these, get the 8-15. You will have to learn how to use it; I'm still learning.
Regards
Jonny

http://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Swiss/Heitenried/Heitenried-Spring-2014/

This one is killer Jonny. Between the images, both from you and a couple other responders, I can see that this lens is a neccisity for my kit ;-) Thanks for sharing / educating.

Cheers, James

--
'The question is not what you look at, but what you see'
Thoreau

 

[fritzli]

If you like pictures like these, get the 8-15. You will have to learn how to use it; I'm still learning.
Regards
Jonny

http://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Swiss/Heitenried/Heitenried-Spring-2014/

This one is killer Jonny. Between the images, both from you and a couple other responders, I can see that this lens is a neccisity for my kit ;-) Thanks for sharing / educating.

Cheers, James

Thanks, James, enjoy the new FE!
PS: via the link above you can see a whole gallery of FE-trees ;-)



--
http://www.jonnyfoto.ch - www.500px.com/jonnykopp - www.twitter.com/jonny_kopp

 

[Mystery Gardener]

If you like pictures like these, get the 8-15. You will have to learn how to use it; I'm still learning.
Regards
Jonny

http://www.jonnyfoto.ch/Swiss/Heitenried/Heitenried-Spring-2014/

This one is killer Jonny. Between the images, both from you and a couple other responders, I can see that this lens is a neccisity for my kit ;-) Thanks for sharing / educating.

Cheers, James

Thanks, James, enjoy the new FE!
PS: via the link above you can see a whole gallery of FE-trees ;-)

--
http://www.jonnyfoto.ch - www.500px.com/jonnykopp - www.twitter.com/jonny_kopp

Thanks jonny, I will check those out.

Cheers, James

PS: My spell checker must have quit, I see a few spelling errors in my posts. C'est la vie...

--
'The question is not what you look at, but what you see'
Thoreau

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

You will love the Canon Fisheye - I am still learning .... here are a few from the other night - WB is Tungsten.















This is the High Level bridge in Edmonton,, AB Canada, they have decked it out with LEDs, it changes color nightly from blue, green, red,, purple, gold and white.... can't wait to do the purple.

--
Quaecumque vera

 

[Mystery Gardener]

You will love the Canon Fisheye - I am still learning .... here are a few from the other night - WB is Tungsten.





This is the High Level bridge in Edmonton,, AB Canada, they have decked it out with LEDs, it changes color nightly from blue, green, red,, purple, gold and white.... can't wait to do the purple.

--
Quaecumque vera

Thanks for the pics Roger, my wife would love the 'purple'... Do you / have you attended the University of Alberta? I see their motto in your 'quote' line.

Cheers, James

--
'The question is not what you look at, but what you see'
Thoreau

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

Yes indeed I did attend U of A Sir James... a 1989 grad in International relations and still live right by the campus. The bridge is between 500 m away and the campus a few hundred meters beyond that.

Can't wait for purple purple too , I think it will complement the surrounding colors better and the foot path should look way cool in a purple hue. Some nights they stagger the colors which is not my fave but perhaps one should keep an open mind in the pantheon of the art world.

These were the first 2 pix I thought " ok - we may be onto something here." I stacked a 3 stop over under shot. Next time I won't cut off the foreground curve.

--
Quaecumque vera

 

[Mystery Gardener]

Yes indeed I did attend U of A Sir James... a 1989 grad in International relations and still live right by the campus. The bridge is between 500 m away and the campus a few hundred meters beyond that.

Can't wait for purple purple too , I think it will complement the surrounding colors better and the foot path should look way cool in a purple hue. Some nights they stagger the colors which is not my fave but perhaps one should keep an open mind in the pantheon of the art world.

These were the first 2 pix I thought " ok - we may be onto something here." I stacked a 3 stop over under shot. Next time I won't cut off the foreground curve.

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

Yes indeed I did attend U of A Sir James... a 1989 grad in International relations and still live right by the campus. The bridge is between 500 m away and the campus a few hundred meters beyond that.

Can't wait for purple purple too , I think it will complement the surrounding colors better and the foot path should look way cool in a purple hue. Some nights they stagger the colors which is not my fave but perhaps one should keep an open mind in the pantheon of the art world.

These were the first 2 pix I thought " ok - we may be onto something here." I stacked a 3 stop over under shot. Next time I won't cut off the foreground curve.

 

[ed rader]

I have the sigma 15mm in my kit but I use my 14mm prime much more.

 

[Lee Jay]

I have the sigma 15mm in my kit but I use my 14mm prime much more.

I had the Sigma 15 and the 17-40L. I used the 17-40 so rarely I sold it. When I switched to crop from full-frame, I sold the Sigma and bought the 8-15L. I didn't buy a rectilinear ultrawide.

On my last trip, most of my favorite shots came from the fisheye.