hey guys i really want a either the Canon Lens 10-22mm EF-S f/3.5-4.5 USM or the Canon Lens 15mm EF f/2.8 Fish Eye i want to get pics like the great http://www.samchuiphotos.com/about   awsome pics i think he uses a 15mm fish eye not sure! also http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-C...d=6d3c0b6105276007a135ab1794fca0a8 how do you get a nice crisp back round?
THANKS GUYS!
Andrew

Quoting Seaeagle2323 (Thread starter):

First of all, Sam has a Nikon :P

The 10-22 from personal experience does give a slight fisheye effect at 10mm. I like it - it's a nice lens. Others out there say that the Sigma 10-20 is better.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the point of whether you were wanting a fisheye or more of a standard type lens.

Crisp backgrounds come from a lot of different things; probably the main one being depth of field. Also the better the glass inside the lens, the better the picture quality.

hey champ thanks mate yer i guess ill try both and see! nikon :P vs canon lol no coment ahah thanks ill go to the same spot and use the 100-400L and try maybe iso 100 shutter 500 and apature around 9 ish and see what i get just need a nice crisp sydney morning! thanks!

Quoting Seaeagle2323 (Thread starter):

Given that you're talking about the 10-22, I assume you have a crop camera. 15mm on a crop camera is not really wide enough. The 10-22 is much wider. I have it and I personally love it. But, it doesn't have the fisheye effect. If you want to go wide and with the fisheye effect, have a look at the Sigma 10mm fisheye.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...ll_details.asp?id=3337&navigator=6

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 1): Others out there say that the Sigma 10-20 is better.

No chance!   The Sigma has a bit better build quality, but image quality-wise the Canon is better. The Sigma might be considered better value for money though (if, and that's big if, you get a good copy).

tony

If you want a real 180 degree diagonal fisheye for your crop camera, look to the Sigma 10mm.

Quoting SNATH (Reply 3): if, and that's big if, you get a good copy

Exactly right. I bought one, and it was atrocious - only the centre of the image was sharp, and all the edges were blurry. I exchanged it for another copy; the new one was better but still not the image quality I expected; to get acceptable sharpness over all the image, I had to close the aperture at least to f/11. Had it serviced by Sigma a few weeks ago, and now it is excellent, all sharp even at f/4. I finally have the lens I wanted but only after so much hassle.

Cheers,
Andrei

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 5): I bought one, and it was atrocious

Join the club.  

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 5): I finally have the lens I wanted but only after so much hassle.

I really wonder how Sigma can make money with all the returns and repairs... Sure, they don't spend much on QA, but it really shows!

Tony

Quoting SNATH (Reply 3): No chance!

Well that's good to know! A long way away but I think I'll eventually get this lens. I just haven't had the best experience with Sigma and I'd rather stick to Canon.

Quoting Dvincent (Reply 4): No chance!

Not sure about that. I've done some research, and I've read quite a few accounts stating that Sigma 10-20 image is is sharper than that of the Canon 10-22 (that is, if you get a good copy of the Sigma).

Some people suggested, when buying a Sigma 10-20, one should try it in store.

I'm not defending the Sigma, and I believe they should have better quality control. But I'm just trying to be fair. I know a few people, a couple of them being also A.net photographers, who are absolutely happy with their Sigma 10-20. And so am I, now that I got it fixed.

Cheers,
Andrei