Sigma 30 1.4 or Canon 15 2.8 fish?

Mike Lane

I know, I know 2 totally different lenses. But they're around the same price range and here I am wanting them both but not going to get them both. At least not before the shootout :wink So given that I'm going to be shooting mostly landscapes and that I've got a 17-85 and a 50-500 bigma (I know, I know for landscapes??? :huh) which do you think would get me the most mileage at Bryce and Zion the Sigma 30 1.4 or the Canon 15 2.8 fish?

Thanks! :thumb

Bob Bell

Mike Lane wrote:

I know, I know 2 totally different lenses. But they're around the same price range and here I am wanting them both but not going to get them both. At least not before the shootout So given that I'm going to be shooting mostly landscapes and that I've got a 17-85 and a 50-500 bigma (I know, I know for landscapes??? ) which do you think would get me the most mileage at Bryce and Zion the Sigma 30 1.4 or the Canon 15 2.8 fish?

Thanks!

You have the 30mm FL covered so the only question is if you need low light for slot canyons or something. The fish eye is a cool / fun lens. I've never used one so I am only guessing here, but with pano tools you should be able to make wide 1 shot panos.

Mike Lane

Bob Bell wrote:

You have the 30mm FL covered so the only question is if you need low light for slot canyons or something. The fish eye is a cool / fun lens. I've never used one so I am only guessing here, but with pano tools you should be able to make wide 1 shot panos.

True but I don't have 30mm below f/4 or so covered. It's not necessarily a landscape requirement but my thought is the 30mm prime would be much sharper than 30mm on my 17-85.

I guess I also neglected to look up other fisheye lenses like the sigma 14 2.8, and sigma 15 2.8. The 14 is a bit more expensive obviously but not nearly the cost of the canon 14 2.8 fish ($1700 on pricegrabber :oogle)

ziggy53

Mike,

As an alternative to the Canon fisheye, you might also consider the Zenitar 16mm, f2.8. It gets pretty good reviews and is inexpensive (comparitively).

http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/zenitar-fisheye-canon-eos.htm

http://www.kievcamera.com/product.php?ID=15

Reviewed here:

http://photonotes.org/reviews/zenitar-fisheye/

and here:

http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/fisheye.html

ziggy53

DavidTO

Have you thought about the 10-22EFS?

Mike Lane

DavidTO wrote:

Have you thought about the 10-22EFS?

Yes. Sort of. I guess it's less expensive than the 14 2.8 fish eh?

wxwax

I would not recommend the 15mm fish for landscapes. It's a specialty lens, will be next to useless for conventional landscape photography. BTDT.

I think David's suggestion, the 10-22, is spot on.

DavidTO

wxwax wrote:

I would not recommend the 15mm fish for landscapes. It's a specialty lens, will be next to useless for conventional landscape photography. BTDT.

I think David's suggestion, the 10-22, is spot on.

I love it.

Justiceiro

You are right, these are two totally different lenses, so I guess any comment on them is bound to be an aesthetic comment. So my aesthetic view is thus; I think fisheye would be terrible for landscape. In fact, fisheye to me reeks of gimmickry. Before all the fisheye fans start jumping up and down, I am well aware that, limited though it might be, the fisheye does have certain niche uses. Photographing close-ups of dog's noses, for example- nothing funnier than a greeting card with a big distorted dog face on it.

Unless you plan to go into the dog greeting card business, that's a hole I wouldn't throw any money down.

As far as the Zenitar goes, I have never used Zenit lenses, excpet bakc in the day when I had a Zenit SLR. I got great shots off that. And some of the Eastern stuff is awesome. I have an 80mm Zeiss Jena Biometar that cost me, with the MF camera body, around $90. It's probably the highest quality lens I have.

Shooting with a wide prime would likely create some great landscape shots. f1.4 expands your possibilities greatly, and I would imagine that at f8 or f9 that thing would be razor sharp. So I would go for the 30mm, rather than the fisheye.
Just my 2 cents.

Mike Lane

Maybe I'll rent all 3 lenses (30mm 1.4, 10-22, and some kind of fisheye or another) and give 'em all a go to see what I like best. I'm leaning towards the 30mm 1.4 for cheapness sake but I may not like the 48mm equiv focal length for the shootout purposes.

wxwax

Justiceiro wrote:

In fact, fisheye to me reeks of gimmickry. Before all the fisheye fans start jumping up and down, I am well aware that, limited though it might be, the fisheye does have certain niche uses. Photographing close-ups of dog's noses, for example- nothing funnier than a greeting card with a big distorted dog face on it.

Unless you plan to go into the dog greeting card business, that's a hole I wouldn't throw any money down.

It's not that limited. This is on a 1.3 crop camera.

Mike Lane

wxwax wrote:

It's not that limited. This is on a 1.3 crop camera.

See those are nice. I will concede that they are closeup subjects not landscapes. Thanks yo.

wxwax

Mike Lane wrote:

See those are nice. I will concede that they are closeup subjects not landscapes. Thanks yo.

We definitely agree that the 15 mm fisheye isn't a landscape lens, at least not in the traditional sense.

DoctorIt

you're just jealous cause you wish you had a reasonably priced 10.5mm fisheye for Canon.




I'm just kidding, I know that Sigma is an awesome lens. As a matter of fact, I want to mention another sigma you're missing... you should sell that silly wicked purple fringing 17-85 (I hated mine) and get the Sigma 18-50, fixed f/2.8. Very, very nice... you might have money left over for a real fisheye then too, no?

this is with the 18-50:

Mike Lane

DoctorIt wrote:

you're just jealous cause you wish you had a reasonably priced 10.5mm fisheye for Canon.

I wasn't but I am now that I think about it!

DoctorIt wrote:

I'm just kidding, I know that Sigma is an awesome lens. As a matter of fact, I want to mention another sigma you're missing... you should sell that silly wicked purple fringing 17-85 (I hated mine) and get the Sigma 18-50, fixed f/2.8. Very, very nice... you might have money left over for a real fisheye then too, no?

18-50 is worth it eh? 2.8 is nice nice soldier boy. And it'd make a nice compliment to an eventual 10-22 (or sig 10-20) buy. My only concern is that I'd have to strap on the bigma if I wanted anything beyond 50mm. I don't have so much of a problem with purple fringing as I do with lens flare. Kind of drives me bonkers the lens flare.

DoctorIt wrote:

this is with the 18-50:

Quite nice!

DanielB

if its a fisheye you want you could always get a Sigma 8mm f/4

or Pheleng 8mm f/3.5 are always available with an adapter on ebay for 200 or so. nice deal for a specialty lens and they sell nicely on the used market.

for wide i would go with the 10-22

DoctorIt

Mike Lane wrote:

18-50 is worth it eh?

really nice, I hope to get one myself (that one was borrowed).

lens flare, eh? So that lens is even more disappointing now that you tell me that. can't the faults in it at least be consistent?!

Andy

Mike, the Canon 14 is *not* a fisheye, it's a rectilinear lens. Dubious quality, too. IMO not worth it.

The 10-22 is so sweet.

Justiceiro

DoctorIt wrote:

you're just jealous cause you wish you had a reasonably priced 10.5mm fisheye for Canon.

Curses! Dr. It strikes again.

OK, I concede that they might have a few uses other than dog nose pics. However, if one is on a budget, I really think something rectilinear is better. Just more useful. You can always PS in effects later.

Plus, the way your nose looks in that fisheye is how my nose looks in real life. If I had a fisheye of me, I would basically be all nose.

David_S85

Andy know his 10-22's <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/deal.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Good time to buy... The 10-22 is really low priced right now at B&H (use search psmar06, then select Canon).

The 10-22 is a cool lens, but don't think for a minute that <15mm is totally correctable in PTLens - that is to say, if you want quality output. PTLens is also supposed to be able to handle fisheye lenses, but only solves some issues.

Don't get me wrong, PT is a great plugin (or any variants of the pttools), but its not a miracle worker. The best part of the plugin is the ability to correct CA, which you will invariably get with any WA, and at around 10mm, in droves.

For landscapes without visable near edge distortion problems, the 10-22 can be trusted above the 15mm settings. Below that they just get strange (but fun).

EDIT: Oh, and I forgot to mention that you can catch an entire basketball in the lens hood. That alone might be worth the price of admission. Note: Lens hood additional cost.

gluwater

DavidTO wrote:

I love it.

Can we get that phrase on the SmugMug hats at Bryce? I love my 10-22 BTW.

Mike Lane

Okay, going a totally new direction. I decided that 30mm 1.4 is nice but I won't have much use for it any time soon. If I start shooting more indoor stuff I'll get one. Until then I'll just rent a fast lens if I need to shoot indoors.

DoctorIt got me thinking about quality. First I hate hate hate the lens flare on my 17-85. Second I'm worried about CA with it. So I think I need to consider a replacement for it. The 10-22 is a little wide to be a replacement. The 17-55 isn't out yet and it's $1100 anyhow. The 16-35L is much too expensive obviously. But I think the 17-40L will be a great choice. It's being discontinued so I should get it sooner than later, and I can get it for less than $700. From what I've read over at FM and Canon Zoom Lens Review, it's great at controlling lens flare and CA (although I may want to use a lens hood for the 24-70 - or was it 28-105 - on my 1.6x 20D) and the images you get from it are excellent quality. It is quite a bit shorter on the long side than I'm used to. My thought is that I would save money away towards getting a 28-105L or maybe a 24-70L (I know both very expensive) and then maybe one day a 70-200 2.8 L IS. Oh and the 10-22 eventually too.

So anyhow, the 17-40L. My first L lens