FighterPilot From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1379 posts, RR: 22 Posted (10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3317 times:
I'm looking to buy a wide angle or fisheye lens in the near future, I would mainly be using it for cabin and cockpit shots but also for other photography uses like landscapes. I currently own a 40D but am looking to buy a full frame sensor camera in the future as well (1-2 years).
I've come down to 5 main lenses:
1) EF-S 10-22mm. Good reviews,very wide, non-fisheye, moderate price, EF-S mount only.
2) EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. Older, moderate price, decent reviews, EF mount, fisheye.
3) EF 8-15mm Fisheye. Good reviews, "L," Expensive, EF mount, fisheye.
4) Samyang 8mm Fisheye. Decent reviews, inexpensive, EF mount, fisheye.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6408 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (10 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 3288 times:
Quoting FighterPilot (Thread starter): I currently own a 40D but am looking to buy a full frame sensor camera in the future as well (1-2 years).
The fisheye effect is much more pronounced on a full frame camera; although Canon has tried to cater for the crop sensor too with the 8-15mm fisheye. The 'problem' with this (if you call it one) is that it's only f/4 and not 2.8 like the 15mm fisheye. If you're wanting a lens for landscapes as well, I suggest going for a non-fisheye but of course that depends on what type of landscape stuff you want to do. Maybe you want to look around for the Canon 16-35mm mk I (mk II would probably be out of your price range) considering that you're looking at full frame. Unless you plan to keep your 40D and use that solely for your UWA shots.
Ask yourself if you like the fisheye effect enough to want to get one. Maybe rent one and test it out. Fisheye doesn't suit everyone.
photopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2720 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3279 times:
The first thing you really must decide is whether you want a lens that produces a result with LOTS of barrel distortion (fisheye) or a lens that's very wide but rectilinear. Each is a distinctly different visual effect, so the lens you choose should be predicated by the result you're looking for.
yerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 months 5 days ago) and read 3184 times:
I am a Nikon guy and use a fisheye on FF camera a lot when possible and do love it. I think this lens is very specific and gives you unique view. This is a lifesaver in tight places/spaces. I had a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens in the past but I didn't like it. This is just my personal experience. Perhaps you'll like wide non-fisheye. You decide
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3089 times:
It is possible to de-fish the fish-eye effect in PS fairly effectively, (though you may lose some corner detail), so a fish-eye lens may give you the best of both worlds.
The fish eye lens will certainly get you shots which may be impossible any other way - though personally I find the look gets old fast!
I very much like the Canon 10-22mm, but the fact that it only works on a crop body is an issue. If you are planning to go full frame soon, I'd consider hanging on and consider the Canon 17-40 which gives a similar POV on a full frame body, and is an excellent lens at a reasonable price for L glass. One of my favorites.
FYODOR From Russia, joined May 2005, 658 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3016 times:
Two cents from me.
I guess guys already told you (I didn't read all the messages) that there is a certain difference between clasic wide angle and fisheye. There are diverse kind of lenses for rether different purposes. At least they give you very different pictures - more volume but more distortion with fisheye. Preferably to have both of them in the bag.
I use full frame and have Canon 15 mm fisheye and 17-40 for wide angle (it is like 11-25 on crop matrix) and happy with both. I thought about 8-15 but didn't find enough advantages for its price. Some of my colleagues use 16-35 and 14 2.8 and happy with it as wellm but all it is price issue.
I used Sigma years ago, it is not bad but I left it and do not miss
JohnKrist From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2932 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting ckw (Reply 5): If you are planning to go full frame soon, I'd consider hanging on and consider the Canon 17-40 which gives a similar POV on a full frame body, and is an excellent lens at a reasonable price for L glass. One of my favorites.
I agree, only issue is that the image is blurry in the corners at 17mm, but with a true fisheye you wont have the corners at all so I think blurry is better than black
Only fisheye I have tried is the Sigma 8mm I bought in HK for a spotting buddy. On a 50D it produces black corners already on a crop body and is full circular on a FF. Image quality is not bad though, I've had 3 accepted on Airliners:
FighterPilot From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1379 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (9 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2743 times:
Thanks for the information so far.
I'm starting to lean towards the 10-20mm EF-S. The body upgrade is more of a want and not a need. I'm looking at going from my 40D to a 5D mk II or mk III but that wouldn't be for a while now. I may buy a samyang 8mm fisheye just for having a fisheye because it's so cheap. Once I upgrade to a full frame I'd sell my 10-20mm and look at getting the 16-35mm mk II
FighterPilot From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 1379 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (9 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
Thanks for the help everyone. I've decided to go with the 10-22mm. I ordered it last week and should be here some time this week! Can't wait! I'm thinking I'm going to save for the Canon 5D MK III and purchase it some time in the new year, then sell my 10-22mm and buy the 16-35mm MK II. I'm also looking at buying the Samyang 8mm Fisheye seeing as it's so cheap, and it being a specialty lens I don't wanna spend too much on a fisheye.