To fisheye or just go UWA.

davev

I want a ultra wide angle lens.
My cameras are: Canon XT, XTi, 30D. All crop sensors.

Top choices are:

Canon 10-22. 107 degrees @ 10mm
Tokina 12-24. 99 degrees @ 12mm
Tokina 10-17 fisheye. 180 degrees @ 10mm

I have many (to many) lenses that start at 17 or 18 mm. So I'm looking for something wider.
(3 kit lenses, a Tamron 17-50 F2.8, and a Tamron 18-200)

I really like the idea of the fisheye, but I don't know if I would really like the results.

Does anyone know if the distortion is less at the 17mm point, or is it still fairly radical? It would be kind of nice to go from fisheye to uwa without having to change lenses.

I've read the tokina's are built like tanks, and the canon's built like the kit lens.

Anybody out there use at least 2 of these to give me some insight?

Thanks in advance.

sirsloop

I can't speak for the 12-24 or the fishy... but I really love the 10-22. What a Kool little lens. The difference between 10 and 12mm IMHO is pretty dramatic. I don't like the fisheye because it just bends the edges way crazy like. The 10-22 does its fair share of angle mucking, but the lines are still relatively straight even at 10mm. These photos would look like dr seuss's wet dream with a fisheye









Build quality on the 10-22 is standard canon prosumer lens. Its not a metal body, but zoom and focus are smooth. I would recommend a UV filter such as the Hoya S-HMC *thin*... or digital pro (has threads). I have heard that the standard threaded UV filters will cause vignetting on this lens. I have the thin UV filter which does not have any threads - and the canon lens cover is replaced with one that just sticks on the end. My boss got the digital pro UV filters for his 16-35, and its got JUST enough threads to hold the canon cap on. Its more money, but may be worth it on a lens like this where a cheapy UV filter will cause issues at 10mm.


and trust me... you can get PLENTY creative with this lens

(me and my shaq feet )




10mm Goose chasing...



or (almost) normal!

Manfr3d

davev wrote:

I want a ultra wide angle lens.
My cameras are: Canon XT, XTi, 30D. All crop sensors.

Top choices are:

Canon 10-22. 107 degrees @ 10mm
Tokina 12-24. 99 degrees @ 12mm
Tokina 10-17 fisheye. 180 degrees @ 10mm

I have many (to many) lenses that start at 17 or 18 mm. So I'm looking for something wider.
(3 kit lenses, a Tamron 17-50 F2.8, and a Tamron 18-200)

I really like the idea of the fisheye, but I don't know if I would really like the results.

Does anyone know if the distortion is less at the 17mm point, or is it still fairly radical? It would be kind of nice to go from fisheye to uwa without having to change lenses.

I've read the tokina's are built like tanks, and the canon's built like the kit lens.

Anybody out there use at least 2 of these to give me some insight?

Thanks in advance.

Hi Dave,

The fisheye zoom will have fisheye efect all the way altough decreasing
at the long end of the zoom range. If you already own a lens that starts
at 17mm I wouldn't want to get a 12-24mm lens like the Tokina while you
can get a Sigma 10-20mm/4-5.6 EX for the same money. The Sigma is
as sharp (in some tests even sharper) than the Canon 10-22mm and as
well build like the Tokina (=better than the Canon).

Here are reviews of the Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22 and Tokina 12-24:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm

You will see that they are very close to each other performance wise.

Here is a sample pic I took with my Sigma 10-20mm @10mm f8 iso400,
no postprocessing was applied.

sirsloop

FYI...

USAIR

The 10-22 gets my vote great lens...then later get the fisheye

Fred

jdryan3

My favorite part of the post/question?

davev wrote:

I want a ultra wide angle lens.

I love the honesty!

sirsloop

well... who doesn't?

jdryan3

sirsloop wrote:

well... who doesn't?

It's just that so many posts begin with "I need ...". And then the poster may show how little they know about what they "need", but they know they need it.

claudermilk

Now I'll come in and cause trouble by recommending the 12-24 over the Canon.

I've used the Canon and it's a nice lens, but it does indeed feel much like a kit lens. I didn't care for that, but the optics are great.

I ended up buying the Tokina instead. $200 less expensive, and an L-like build. It also includes a hood, so that's another $34 against the Canon. Optics are on par with the Canon, so IMHO little to choose between them there. One of the core arguments between the two is the 10-12mm range--except for closed situations like sirsloop showed it's not much difference IMHO (typically Tokina owners consider it minor, Canon owners consider it huge--it's part of the personal decision between them).

Anyway, you cannot go wrong with either.

Oh, and at least on the Tokina no slim filters are needed on crop bodies, the standard ones work fine with no vignetting--even CPLs.

sirsloop

I think you're right about the tokina vs canon owners... being a canon owner I consider my lens UWA. I view the tokina as AUWA (almost UWA )

If you are looking to save a few bucks on the lens the sigma 10-20 would be my second choice. I'd sacrifice the tele end of a lens like this before sacrificing the wide end! That'll save you $200 bucks and you can get yourself a 35/2 with the change . I'm still a very happy camper with the 10-22, even if it cost $700.

DJ-S1

Another vote for the Canon 10-22. I don't think you will be disappointed, and the difference between 17 and 10 is huge.



This one is a bit distorted, but my friend bet me that I couldn't get the whole cargo plane in frame while standing underneath the wing. There's software to fix the funkiness, but I kind of like it this way.



To me the fisheye is not as useful as the 10-22 is. Good luck with your decision.

davev

DJ-S1 wrote:

There's software to fix the funkiness, but I kind of like it this way.

Thanks everyone. I'm still on the fence.
But the Tokina 12-24 is starting to lag behind.

The statement above really interests me.
If there is software (that would work on a mac) that can remove the "funkyness" of a distorted shot, i.e. a fisheye shot, wouldn't the fisheye be the more useful lens?
I haven't heard about this software, but if it could straighten out a fisheye shot at 10 mm, plus I'd still have the creativeness of the fisheye. The Tokina would for sure be the lens to get.

I can't get it out of my head that 180 degrees is a whole lot wider than 107 degrees.

DavidTO

davev wrote:

Thanks everyone. I'm still on the fence.
But the Tokina 12-24 is starting to lag behind.

The statement above really interests me.
If there is software (that would work on a mac) that can remove the "funkyness" of a distorted shot, i.e. a fisheye shot, wouldn't the fisheye be the more useful lens?
I haven't heard about this software, but if it could straighten out a fisheye shot at 10 mm, plus I'd still have the creativeness of the fisheye. The Tokina would for sure be the lens to get.

I can't get it out of my head that 180 degrees is a whole lot wider than 107 degrees.

There are several options. Check out dxo.com. Pricey, but there's nothing better for correcting lens distortions, that I know of.

Here's a review of an older version.

bham

davev wrote:

I want a ultra wide angle lens.
My cameras are: Canon XT, XTi, 30D. All crop sensors.

Top choices are:

Canon 10-22. 107 degrees @ 10mm
Tokina 12-24. 99 degrees @ 12mm
Tokina 10-17 fisheye. 180 degrees @ 10mm

I have many (to many) lenses that start at 17 or 18 mm. So I'm looking for something wider.
(3 kit lenses, a Tamron 17-50 F2.8, and a Tamron 18-200)

I really like the idea of the fisheye, but I don't know if I would really like the results.

Does anyone know if the distortion is less at the 17mm point, or is it still fairly radical? It would be kind of nice to go from fisheye to uwa without having to change lenses.

I've read the tokina's are built like tanks, and the canon's built like the kit lens.

Anybody out there use at least 2 of these to give me some insight?

Thanks in advance.

How about the Canon 15mm 2.8 Fisheye? According to the Canon website it gives 180 degree view, but I am sure that is on a FF camera.

I am currently considering getting this lens.

Zanotti

I got the Sigma 10-20 and am pleased with it.

There is a learning curve, I have lots of shots of my feet!

Z

davev

Curiosity got the better of me tonight, so I gave a Tokina 10-17 fisheye a test drive.
I think this could be one fun lens to use, once you learned how to use it.

I brought my Canon XTi with the Kit lens to compare it to.
It appeared that the Tokina was soft or out of focus on the very right side.
At least I hope it's not the camera.

These first three shots, I focused on the watertower.

Kit lens at 18mm


Tokina at 17mm. As you can see, the fisheye isn't real wild, but it's still there.


Tokina at 10mm. Oh My God!


A couple more indoors at 10mm




At 10mm


At 17mm


For the full size shots go here: http://davev.smugmug.com/gallery/3240221

claudermilk

DavidTO wrote:

There are several options. Check out dxo.com. Pricey, but there's nothing better for correcting lens distortions, that I know of.

Here's a review of an older version.

The issue there is you must have one of the anointed combinations or you're SOL. It appears the Canon 10-22 and Tokina are actually supported on all three bodies, but the fish is only supported on the XTi, and only for v4.

Bibble uses corrections based on PTLens and has a far more extensive list of supported body/lens combinations. They are also fairly responsive in adding new ones, and you can help out if need be, so specialty/oddball combos can get support as well.

Then of course, just PTLens on it's own. Anyway, now you have three software options to check out.

Those fish shots look like fun, but how long before that gets old? I recall (dating myself here, but I was only just barely old enough to recall) that fisheyes got real popular a while back, then got real tired after everyone was producing funky fisheye shots. I think the 10-22 or 12-24 is a better choice to start; if you want 180-deg coverage, take 3 shots & stitch them. Then whip out a Peleng 8mm fish for the goofy shot. Food for thought.

ziggy53

If it is the "fisheye" effect you are looking for, the USSR made Peleng 8mm, f3.5 is reported to be very good quality, at a very reasonable price. (Yikes, Chris slipped in first.)

http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/stuff/peleng_fisheye/peleng_fisheye.html
http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/peleng_fisheye_lens_for_canon_eos.htm
http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/lenses/0801sb_thewide/
http://www.astrosurf.com/cavadore/chungara/kaf6303E/AllSkyMon/index.html

dancorder

Ok, I'm afraid I'm going to have to mention Ken Rockwell here :hide as he's got an article about DxO that covers the question of whether you only need a fisheye (look for the "Fisheye Conversion Quality" heading). Whether you agree with him or not the examples shots above are at least useful.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm

davev

Thanks everyone again.

It's not so much I'm trying to go with the fisheye look. I'm trying to get 2 lenses for the price of one.:D
I know, more honesty.

Thanks for that link Dan.
I downloaded a trial version of DXO.
I ran these in the "auto" mode.
I have no idea what I was doing, I was just guessing.

The gallery with most of the shots are here: http://davev.smugmug.com/gallery/3240221

Here are a couple of the results.










The more I look at these, the more I'm thinking about the Canon 10-22.
I need to look at more shots to make my head hurt again.

Maybe I should just try a few stitched panorama's and see what I end up with.

claudermilk

Dan: that's playing with fire & you know no good can come of it.

Dave: Those actually worked out pretty good. What I wonder is what the equivalent focal length is of the corrected shots. I'm sure it's far short of 10mm (I'm guessing approximately 14mm or so).


Personally I'd get either the 10-22 or 12-24 (my bag holds the 12-24, so my preference is obvious) and the Peleng which is only a little more than the full DxO package. In poking around, I ran across a couple of utilities just for fisheyes: RectFish and Fish Eye Hemi. Both look promising. So several options available. Of course, part of my attraction to the Peleng is it's an oddball Russian lens most people have never seen.

USAIR

ziggy53 wrote:

If it is the "fisheye" effect you are looking for, the USSR made Peleng 8mm, f3.5 is reported to be very good quality, at a very reasonable price. (Yikes, Chris slipped in first.)

http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/stuff/peleng_fisheye/peleng_fisheye.html
http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/peleng_fisheye_lens_for_canon_eos.htm
http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/lenses/0801sb_thewide/
http://www.astrosurf.com/cavadore/chungara/kaf6303E/AllSkyMon/index.html

ziggy
Thanks for the links
Going to look into the Peleng lens fot the 30D

Fred

davev

Well, I've decided that any of the wide angles would sit in the camera bag to much of the time,
so I bought a good sturdy tripod and head and will try to stitch shots together to do the wider angle stuff.

Now I just have to practice doing the stitch thing.

Thanks to everyone that responded to this thread.
As much as the UWA would have been nice to have, I think this tripod will serve me better over the long haul.

The Pod
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486871-REG/Induro_462313_A313_Alloy_6M_A_Series.html
The head:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/434497-REG/Bogen_Manfrotto_804RC2_804RC2_3_Way_Pan_Tilt_Head.html

Zanotti

ShiftN
There is also freeware called ShiftN that does roughly the same thing - although I have to admit the DxO expamples are fabulous.

http://www.marcus-hebel.de/foto/index.html


I would like to take credit for knowing this myself, but I am sure I learned it here as well, so this post may be redundant. I didnt see ShiftN in the other discussions here.

Z