APS-C ultrawide or FF fisheye?

monky

hi all

i shoot an XT. the 17-40/4L just isn't wide enough. i've been looking into the following lenses:

canon 15 fish
sig 15 fish
canon 10-22
sig 10-20

the APS-Cs are wider, but they are not full frame. and the sigmas aren't canon. those are my biases. i've bought only canon and only FF lenses so far, in anticipation of going FF (and the 5D looks like i was justified in my thinking; if its real).

i could always sell off the UWZ when i go full frame, but then i will lose money. and if i bought the fisheye, i wouldn't have to sell it. and the fisheyes are cheaper to begin with. they are also faster and sharper. not to mention that i can either get a fisheye OR a rectilinear effect from them if i want; the UWZs cant do that without losing field of view on the edges, essentially making them as long as the fisheye anyway.

the fisheyes give a 12mm HFOV when defished... that works out to 19mm vs the 16mm FOV i would get with the UWZs. so the zooms are about 3mm wider. oh, and they zoom.


what would you buy, and WHY? i've pondered this for a month now and came to no readily discernable conclusion (except that hate choices). i am not looking for other suggestions (sig 12-24 is too expensive, zenitar isn't wide enough, tokina and tamron UWZs aren't wide enough AND not FF). i am just looking for you to convince me that your choice is the right one. and needless to say, mentioning anything i already have wont help, since i've already thought about it and i got nowhere!

phew... sorry about the organization there. it was just one train of thought that kept coming :rolleyes.


thanks for any suggestions. and if you read this far, thanks just for that!:1drink.

gtc

las vegas
thanks for a detailed analysis of your thinking and the properties of these lenses-very informative-it will be useful for when I can go wide.

my uneducated suggestion-buy both ,one now and another later or if you have the buck$ buy them both at once.

the aps-c lens is the way I have gone with my 20d-if ever I go full frame I will either hold onto the camera and lenses or try and sell it as a job lot.

aps-c will be around for a long time so dont worry

re worrying about losing money on gear-there is no real way to avoid it-it depreciates as soon as you walk out of the shop-the way around it is to try and make the gear at least pay for itself somehow,or not spend too much in the first place by buying second hand(Las Vegas looks like a good place to sniff around if you can avoid the obvious temptations)

monky wrote:

hi all

i shoot an XT. the 17-40/4L just isn't wide enough. i've been looking into the following lenses:

canon 15 fish
sig 15 fish
canon 10-22
sig 10-20

the APS-Cs are wider, but they are not full frame. and the sigmas aren't canon. those are my biases. i've bought only canon and only FF lenses so far, in anticipation of going FF (and the 5D looks like i was justified in my thinking; if its real).

i could always sell off the UWZ when i go full frame, but then i will lose money. and if i bought the fisheye, i wouldn't have to sell it. and the fisheyes are cheaper to begin with. they are also faster and sharper. not to mention that i can either get a fisheye OR a rectilinear effect from them if i want; the UWZs cant do that without losing field of view on the edges, essentially making them as long as the fisheye anyway.

the fisheyes give a 12mm HFOV when defished... that works out to 19mm vs the 16mm FOV i would get with the UWZs. so the zooms are about 3mm wider. oh, and they zoom.


what would you buy, and WHY? i've pondered this for a month now and came to no readily discernable conclusion (except that hate choices). i am not looking for other suggestions (sig 12-24 is too expensive, zenitar isn't wide enough, tokina and tamron UWZs aren't wide enough AND not FF). i am just looking for you to convince me that your choice is the right one. and needless to say, mentioning anything i already have wont help, since i've already thought about it and i got nowhere!

phew... sorry about the organization there. it was just one train of thought that kept coming .


thanks for any suggestions. and if you read this far, thanks just for that!.

Andy

i own and use the canon 15 fish and the canon 10-22 ef-s.

i use the fish on my 1Ds Mark II all the time - it's really fun - and a super sharp lens - and on your 1.6x body, it only needs minimal correction for your w.a. landscapes - or not - artist's choice on the ff, it's really a fun lens to have -- super build quality, and did i say sharp??? i've seen folks' shots from teh sig fish as well - roberta fair comes to mind -- search on pbase for her galleries...

the 10-22 efs - well, ed, it's just a super super lens. i use it on my ir-modded digital rebel - and i'm really glad i have it. excellent control of distortion imo and a most useful lens - many folks here on dgrin have it and shoot regularly with it. it's so good that i just wouldn't think of saving the $$ by buying the third party version. as to ef-s vs full-frame, bah! buy it now, enjoy it and if/when you go to a full-frame camera you'll be able to use the 10-22 on your then-modded rebel xt

Matthew Saville

The Sigma lenses are starting to really kick butt, I keep having to make that known it seems. Don't be afraid of Sigma, people. I'ts just the $99 "disposable" lenses and the super-ultra-hypo-super zooms that have bad quality and give Sigma (and other third party lenses) a bad name... But they also make pro quality stuff that rocks. In some cases like with my new 150mm macro, Sigma actually makes a lens that nobody else is making. And in cases like with the 10-20 and the fisheye, They are near-equal or equal build and image quality, at a bundle less.

You decide. And in the end, I DO understand an affection for L glass if that's the road you stick with, I won't be offended... ;-)

-Matt-

Chase

Matthew Saville wrote:

The Sigma lenses are starting to really kick butt, I keep having to make that known it seems. Don't be afraid of Sigma, people. I'ts just the $99 "disposable" lenses and the super-ultra-hypo-super zooms that have bad quality and give Sigma (and other third party lenses) a bad name... But they also make pro quality stuff that rocks. In some cases like with my new 150mm macro, Sigma actually makes a lens that nobody else is making. And in cases like with the 10-20 and the fisheye, They are near-equal or equal build and image quality, at a bundle less.

You decide. And in the end, I DO understand an affection for L glass if that's the road you stick with, I won't be offended... ;-)

-Matt-

How are you liking that macro?

Ive been looking at that as an alternate to the canon 100mm macro......think I could use it for action stuff or is the auotfocus really sloooooow?

Sigma BTW is really coming out with some great products. I have a 24-70 EX, and almost all of their EX lenses interest me. I would only fix one thing about the 24-70, and thats give it HSM, it really deserves it IMO. 100-300 f4 and 10-20 are on my soon to buy list, and possibly their 150 macro if I can find a good price and the AF isnt rubbish.

monky

thanks andy...
so im guessing, by your reaction, that you would take the 10-22? my choice, i figure, will come down to the 10-22 versus the canon fish. although a used sig fish would be cheapest of the bunch...

and as for IR-modding the XT, geeze, i dont know if i can afford that lol. i'd have to sell that off to pay for my next step.

anyway, thanks for your input andy, appreciate it!:):

andy wrote:

i own and use the canon 15 fish and the canon 10-22 ef-s.

i use the fish on my 1Ds Mark II all the time - it's really fun - and a super sharp lens - and on your 1.6x body, it only needs minimal correction for your w.a. landscapes - or not - artist's choice on the ff, it's really a fun lens to have -- super build quality, and did i say sharp??? i've seen folks' shots from teh sig fish as well - roberta fair comes to mind -- search on pbase for her galleries...

the 10-22 efs - well, ed, it's just a super super lens. i use it on my ir-modded digital rebel - and i'm really glad i have it. excellent control of distortion imo and a most useful lens - many folks here on dgrin have it and shoot regularly with it. it's so good that i just wouldn't think of saving the $$ by buying the third party version. as to ef-s vs full-frame, bah! buy it now, enjoy it and if/when you go to a full-frame camera you'll be able to use the 10-22 on your then-modded rebel xt

monky

point taken
a used sigma fisheye would be by far the cheapest route to travel out of my options. and a new one would still likely run me about the same as a used canon.

either way, thanks for the input. and re: the 'L' glass affinity, i have only taken a liking to L zooms (the affordable ones at that lol). i just cant justify the price of the primes yet.


ed

Matthew Saville wrote:

The Sigma lenses are starting to really kick butt, I keep having to make that known it seems. Don't be afraid of Sigma, people. I'ts just the $99 "disposable" lenses and the super-ultra-hypo-super zooms that have bad quality and give Sigma (and other third party lenses) a bad name... But they also make pro quality stuff that rocks. In some cases like with my new 150mm macro, Sigma actually makes a lens that nobody else is making. And in cases like with the 10-20 and the fisheye, They are near-equal or equal build and image quality, at a bundle less.

You decide. And in the end, I DO understand an affection for L glass if that's the road you stick with, I won't be offended... ;-)

-Matt-

wxwax

I have the 15mm on a 1.3 crop cam. Don't make the mistake of thinking it's just another wide lens. It's not, it's a specialty lens, in that the final image has a unique appearance. I have a Sigma 12-24 as well, so I have a notion about the difference.

If you're simply looking to go wider, I think you've painted yourself into the 10-22 corner, which is not a bad place to be, from what I can see. I would not get the 15mm just to go wider. The 15 is if you know you want that particular look.

monky

wxwax, is there a reason...
that you say this:

wxwax wrote:

Don't make the mistake of thinking it's just another wide lens. It's not, it's a specialty lens, in that the final image has a unique appearance.

once the image is defished, it is theoretically the same as 'just another wide lens.' so, what makes the fisheye different? or are you going by the assumption that i will not want to take the time to defish every image i take.

just looking for your input there.

thanks

NHBubba

A defished 15mm fisheye is NOT equivalent to a 15mm rectilinear. Not even close.. If you don't want the fish-eye distortion in any of your shots, than you're probably better off going w/ a different, not quite as wide rectilinear lens. Unless something else apeals quite a bit about the 15.. meaning the cost, the brightness, the sharpness, whatever.. What I'm trying to say is that if you aren't after the fish eye look, at least take a look at the other wide angles instead.

I work w/ a guy who owns both the Canon 15 fish and the 10-22. Needless to say, he is a big wide angle fan. He uses both on a 1.6x camera (20D). He has commented that he finds the 15 quite a bit less useful now that he owns the 10-22. The 15 only sees action in special situations, like astro-photography where the f/2.8 pays off..

monky

understood
a defished 15mm fisheye will come out to a 12mm HFOV and a 14mm VFOV.

not sure i follow your advice to look for a rectilinear that isn't quite as wide as 15mm... since the fisheye is actually wider than a 15mm rect.

i have taken a good, long look at all of the wide angles. i just cant decide what i want. the fisheye has many things that appeal to me.


ed

NHBubba wrote:

A defished 15mm fisheye is NOT equivalent to a 15mm rectilinear. Not even close.. If you don't want the fish-eye distortion in any of your shots, than you're probably better off going w/ a different, not quite as wide rectilinear lens. Unless something else apeals quite a bit about the 15.. meaning the cost, the brightness, the sharpness, whatever.. What I'm trying to say is that if you aren't after the fish eye look, at least take a look at the other wide angles instead.

I work w/ a guy who owns both the Canon 15 fish and the 10-22. Needless to say, he is a big wide angle fan. He uses both on a 1.6x camera (20D). He has commented that he finds the 15 quite a bit less useful now that he owns the 10-22. The 15 only sees action in special situations, like astro-photography where the f/2.8 pays off..

NHBubba

monky wrote:

a defished 15mm fisheye will come out to a 12mm HFOV and a 14mm VFOV.

Somedays I could smack myself.. I think I gave the wrong impression. Yes, the fish-eye will give you a wider FOV..

But you do loose effective resolution when you defish. And there are other complications. This page shows some example shots taken w/ the 15 fish on a 1.6x crop camera. Notice the defished image at the bottom. When you crop out the black portions you would loose a notable amount of resolution. And besides, you have to do this for every shot. Not sure it's worthwhile if you're repulsed by the fish-eye effect as many seem to be. Like I said, a 15 fish is not really interchangable for a 15 rect, even on a APS-C sensored camera.

I did my own side-by side comparison shots using my associates lenses out in our parking lot. Don't get me wrong, the 15 is a fantastic lens! But I personally would be saving my pennies and dimes for the 10-22 (or maybe that sigma 10-20 I just read about) instead.. Especially if you aren't interested in the fish-eye look.. Me, I like the look, especially for panoramas. My wish list actually has the Sigma 8mm circuilar fish on it.. But its priority is far below the 10-22!

Edit: I just found that I have all of the test images here at work. I just posted them here. Hopefully that helps a little.. Compared is the Canon EF 10-22, EF 15 fisheye, EFS 18-55 'kit', and the Sigma 8mm circular fisheye.

wxwax

monky wrote:

that you say this:

once the image is defished, it is theoretically the same as 'just another wide lens.' so, what makes the fisheye different? or are you going by the assumption that i will not want to take the time to defish every image i take.

just looking for your input there.

thanks

Yes, that's what I'm assuming. Or put another way, why subject yourself to having to defish every image?

monky

ahh, thanks...
well, that is part of the tradeoff i suppose. i hadn't really weighed it too much as far as my choice goes... thanks for bringing it up.

thanks for your input, point taken.

wxwax wrote:

Yes, that's what I'm assuming. Or put another way, why subject yourself to having to defish every image?

monky

two words:
thank you

these FOV comparisons are very useful to me, and i think you may have just made up my mind.

ed