# RIP Canon EF 15 f/2.8 Fisheye



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 22, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/rip-canon-ef-15-f2-8-fisheye/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/11/rip-canon-ef-15-f2-8-fisheye/"></a></div>
<strong>Weâ€™ll miss ya

</strong>The Canon EF 15 f/2.8 is officially <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12069-USA/Canon_2535A003_Fisheye_EF_15mm_f_2_8.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">discontinued at B&H</a>.</p>
<p>I hear from lots of people that arenâ€™t happy with the 8-15 f/4L fisheye. They wish Canon would update the full frame fisheye 2.8 prime.</p>
<p>How many of you wish Canon would do a fast L prime fisheye?</p>
<p><strong>Sigma to the rescue?

</strong>I will say, the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye is a great lens. Itâ€™s what we stock at <a href="http://www.lensrentalscanada.com">Lens Rentals Canada</a>. It can be had for <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/407592-USA/Sigma_476101_15mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296">$609 at B&H</a>. I feel itâ€™s as good as the Canon 15 f/2.8 was/is.</p>
<p><em>thanks Steve</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 22, 2011)

Had the Sigma before, and loved that lens. * Looooooove my 8-15.* It's wider than the Sigma. (It's 15mm is ever so slightly wide than the Sigmas 15mm) and it's still FF at 14mm, where it is considerably wider. For video you can go to 13.5. It's sharper than the sigma, especially way out on the corners.

FF fisheye on crop camera bodies is great. i do shoot with a 7D in addition to my 5DII and knowing i can jump to FF fisheye on the 7D can be great. This can be great in video mode. 

Circular fisheye? Not really my cup of tea, but I am trying to shoot it occasionally.


----------



## oaktowncabron (Nov 22, 2011)

Loving my 15mm Canon on a crop body and have for years now. The only issues I have ever had is the stupid lens cap falling off, but I put a little electrical tape on the outside of the lens rim and now the cap holds with the friction.

Would I be interested in an update, sure. Way back about a year ago there was a new fisheye mentioned and I was all about it. Now with the 8-15 out it is intriguing but I'm not ready to drop that much $$ on it. Sweet spot is around $800 for an updated fun fisheye prime for me.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 22, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> I hear from lots of people that arenâ€™t happy with the 8-15 f/4L fisheye. They wish Canon would update the full frame fisheye 2.8 prime.



Who are these people? I have no experience with this lens, but every review I've read online is glowing. They all say it's sharp, contrasty, and has excellent build quality. Heck, even the Nikon users are extremely jealous about this lens.


----------



## lbloom (Nov 22, 2011)

I have a rental of the Canon 8-15mm fisheye on its way to me this week! I'm excited to use this lens for myself! But it is way to expensive for my uses. The 15mm would have been more reasonable. An updated and considerably cheaper 15mm prime fisheye would be a winner!


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 22, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I hear from lots of people that arenâ€™t happy with the 8-15 f/4L fisheye. They wish Canon would update the full frame fisheye 2.8 prime.
> ...



Second the question - I have the 15mm f/2.8, and I love it. As I use it in low light situations, I consider keeping it even after buying the 8-15mm f/4.

As for Nikon's fisheye, I've read in a[n architecture ?] photography book the Nikon fisheye is so good, Canon photographers use it with an adapter.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 22, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Who are these people?



Probably low-light people. From where I'm coming (astrophotography, northern lights photography), the two-stop one-stop difference in aperture is critical. The EF 8-15/4L FE may be a good lens, but it doesn't replace the EF 15/2.8 FE. Therefore it will be missed.

The 15/2.8 is already excellent optically, the loud focusing motor doesn't matter because the lens can almost be used as a fixed-focus lens (and I use MF for it anyway). The lens cap design leaves some to be desired (it keeps falling off), I'm using a rubber band to keep the cap in place (I may try the tape-friction trick mentioned by oaktowncabron).


----------



## branden (Nov 22, 2011)

lbloom said:


> I have a rental of the Canon 8-15mm fisheye on its way to me this week! I'm excited to use this lens for myself! But it is way to expensive for my uses. The 15mm would have been more reasonable. An updated and considerably cheaper 15mm prime fisheye would be a winner!


That's a great idea, so great that I also just placed an order to rent one for the week. Picking it up tomorrow


----------



## MazV-L (Nov 22, 2011)

I've been tossing up purchasing a fisheye lens for a while now, I have both a FF and APS-C body, renting a lens is not an option. Please post some sample shots of photos you've taken w/ either of the Canon fisheye lenses I'd be interested to see them, thankyou.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 22, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > Who are these people?
> ...



Isn't it a one-stop difference in aperture ?


----------



## Flake (Nov 22, 2011)

I wonder who the people are who want a 'faster' fisheye, probably the same bunch that scream 'faster' at every lens that's ever been released! But this really doesn't make sense, why would anyone want a fast fisheye, unless it's f/.2 and therefore massive there'll be no noticeable effect on DOF but with a lens like this why is DOF important?


----------



## Gcon (Nov 22, 2011)

KyleSTL said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I hear from lots of people that arenâ€™t happy with the 8-15 f/4L fisheye. They wish Canon would update the full frame fisheye 2.8 prime.
> ...



I think the people who are complaining are the ones that don't own the new lens. I have to admit - I was a complainer at first. I wanted f/2.8 and as a full frame shooter - couldn't care less about the zoom. Then I read the review on The Digital Picture (.com) and realised that f/2.8 on the original is pretty blurry and for me that makes it a useless aperture. I think it's probably impossible based on physics of light to make f/2.8 sharp on a 15mm fisheye. Since a soft aperture is unacceptable for a L-designated lens, I'd say this is a contributing factor in making the widest f/4 - that and it being a zoom where f/4 is standard.

Anyway I went out and got one and did a two week road trip pulling out the fisheye regularly (new toy). It has all the "C's" in spades - color, clarity, contrast - all fantastic. Unfortunately also cost - not cheap. It's a little bit punchier in the colors that my 17-40mm f/4L. I really can't fault the IQ at all except corner sharpness until you stop down but that's to be expected for a fisheye.

What a lot of people don't realise is that you can use it on a full frame down to just below 14mm. The difference between 15mm and 14mm is quite large, and I'm really glad I've got that extra mm over the original one.

Besides cost, the only other thing that annoys me is the outer lens cover comes off really easily with the slightest push of the release button. The built in 'hood' stays on pretty well as that twists off.

If you are a full frame shooter then if you want f/2.8 then you can go out and buy the old one, but expect pretty ordinary soft results and if you are a pixel peeper, you just won't use it. As an owner of the new lens, I really don't think anyone should shed a tear with the news of the old lens being discontinued.


----------



## Gcon (Nov 22, 2011)

I just saw the cost of the Sigma fisheye - wow! So much cheaper! If cost is an issue then definitely get that one. The Canon one shouldn't be that much more expensive - possibly it's still at "early adopter" prices. I think if the Sigma is worth US$600-700, then the Canon 8-15mm f/4L should probably be around the US$1000 mark. It is 100% deserving of its 'L' designation though and build quality is great (easily removed lens cap excepted!). 

Again - I wouldn't worry about about losing f/2.8. Who really needs depth of field on a fisheye? It's not like you're going to get much at 14mm or 15mm anyways. Faster shutter? Have you seen the 1Dx high ISO ability?!  f/2.8 is not really needed, or won't be, for a fisheye lens. A sound choice I think by Canon.

So if you want the very best you have to pay through the nose for it. If you can wait then wait - perhaps it'll have big price drops once Japan/Thailand recovers and early adopters like me have theirs. I'm guessing it'll be $1200 in 6 months but hopefully it'll drop more.


----------



## goodmane (Nov 22, 2011)

I've owned the Sigma, and loved using it on a crop body for wide portraits without weired rectilinear faces. So I wouldn't go with the f4 zoom. 

But the Canon version was nicer aesthetically to the Sigma in my opinion. If you hold one, and see that massive glass on the front, you will be in love! But for me, I couldn't afford the Â£500 price tag (and that was years ago), so I went with the Sigma. 

The Canon would definitely be in my lens bag, were money no object. I imagine the collector's price will shoot up now!


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Nov 22, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Probably low-light people. From where I'm coming (astrophotography, northern lights photography), the two-stop difference in aperture is critical. The EF 8-15/4L FE may be a good lens, but it doesn't replace the EF 15/2.8 FE. Therefore it will be missed.



As Epsiloneri pointed out, the folks that are upset with the f/4 fisheye are not primarily because of the DOF, it's because of the inability to use the lens for low light situations such as astrophotography and the ability in low light situations to use a lower iso for noise levels suitable to their tastes.

Having used the 2.8 fisheye I will admit there were times I shot indoors and had to shoot at 2.8 to keep the iso around 800-3200 at hand holdable shutter speeds on my 5d2. Also it is to my understanding astrophotography or to prevent the stars from streaking, it sometimes requires a 30-45 second exposure, so regardless sometimes people will have to be shooting at iso 6400 at 2.8 to get within that range. I am sure as future camera models pop out the higher iso will provide suitable noise levels to various photographer tastes, though currently those models are either not released or out of price range to some.

Also the lens cap issue may sound miniscule to some, but it can become an annoyance. The old 15 2.8 was super loose and i had to use a lenshoodie (best option I've found) to solve the cap from slipping all the time. From reviews it appears the new fisheye has a similar annoying case. I also read about a lot of similar annoyances with the 14-24 nikon lens cap. I just have my hopes that if Canon does release a lens with a protruding or bubble like frontal element that they can get the cap done right like a twist/lock with threading on the 17mm tse.


----------



## niccyboy (Nov 22, 2011)

I have the 8-15 and i love it, i'm just so scared i'll scratch it as the lens cap doesn't fit and close brilliantly, it can be bumped off and of course due to the shaped glass you can't put a UV filter on to protect from scratches.

However if i wasn't so clumsy i'd always have it attached to a body, it makes life easy having a fisheye i can use on my FF and my crops.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 22, 2011)

The fisheyes I know are either diagonal and f/2.8 or circular and f/3.5-4

Is it because it's hard to make a fisheye with wider aperture, or because (at least in manufacturers' perception) no market for faster fisheyes?


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 22, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Isn't it a one-stop difference in aperture ?



Yes, you're right, it's one stop, i.e. a factor of two in light-gathering power.



Gcon said:


> What a lot of people don't realise is that you can use it on a full frame down to just below 14mm. The difference between 15mm and 14mm is quite large, and I'm really glad I've got that extra mm over the original one.



Without vignetting the field? Isn't the 15mm on FF already 180 degrees along the diagonal?



Gcon said:


> If you are a full frame shooter then if you want f/2.8 then you can go out and buy the old one, but expect pretty ordinary soft results and if you are a pixel peeper, you just won't use it.



The 15mm is surprisingly sharp given its wide angle and low price. I certainly wouldn't call it "soft", and that's comparing to e.g. the EF 14/2.8L II, in particular in the corners on FF.



Flake said:


> But this really doesn't make sense, why would anyone want a fast fisheye, unless it's f/.2 and therefore massive there'll be no noticeable effect on DOF but with a lens like this why is DOF important?



A factor of 2 in light-gathering power is nothing to sneer at in low-light applications. A perfect use for FE is imaging northern lights. Since they are dynamic, increasing the exposure time will introduce motion blur. 30 seconds of exposure instead of 60 seconds makes a big difference. Same goes for all-sky astrophotography where Earth's rotation will introduce motion blur for longer exposures (as "Canon 14-24" above indicated). For astrophotography, it doesn't really matter how much the sensor sensitivity improves, it can always use more light. There's a reason larger telescopes are continuously being built! I'm sure indoors shooters also appreciate the extra factor of two in speed.


----------



## Flake (Nov 22, 2011)

I guess it all depends on the definition of a 'fast' lens, and f/2.8 isn't really all that fast (although it's pretty reasonable for a fisheye). My comment would be regarding low light, is that there is a 24mm f/1.4 which is certainly a fast lens, or if the f/4 fisheye zoom is too slow, there's still the 14mm f/2.8 with a slightly reduced field of view, but still rectilinear.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 22, 2011)

Flake said:


> I guess it all depends on the definition of a 'fast' lens, and f/2.8 isn't really all that fast (although it's pretty reasonable for a fisheye).



Yes, but regardless if 2.8 can be considered fast or not, it is still one stop faster than 4.0.



Flake said:


> My comment would be regarding low light, is that there is a 24mm f/1.4 which is certainly a fast lens, or if the f/4 fisheye zoom is too slow, there's still the 14mm f/2.8 with a slightly reduced field of view, but still rectilinear.



Yes, the 24/1.4L is the fastest lens that can be considered wide, but the field of view is quite a bit smaller than the 14/2.8L (or the FE). Also, unfortunately, the corner sharpness of the EF 24/1.4L II is extremely poor wide open (as I've been unfortunate to discover first hand). Only stopped down to 2.8 is it on par with with the EF 14/2.8L II, but then the light-gathering power advantage is gone. Corner sharpness is not as important in every application of course, and it's still a great lens that I use much more than the EF 15/2.8 FE or the EF 14/2.8L II.

I'm not sure the EF 14/2.8L II is a good replacement for the EF 15/2.8 FE with its smaller field of view, twice the weight and 3 times the price. For some it might work.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 22, 2011)

Flake said:


> I guess it all depends on the definition of a 'fast' lens, and f/2.8 isn't really all that fast (although it's pretty reasonable for a fisheye). My comment would be regarding low light, is that there is a 24mm f/1.4 which is certainly a fast lens, or if the f/4 fisheye zoom is too slow, there's still the 14mm f/2.8 with a slightly reduced field of view, but still rectilinear.



I'm sure the 14mm f/2.8 is a good lens, but as an enthusiast (even one who stretched himself to buy a 5Dmk2) I can't drop four figures in dollars on every lens I buy.

Some shows I go to are in a small room with standing crowd, so I have to be right in front of the stage to shoot anything, and with a fisheye I can the whole stage in one shot (esp when there's a big band, say 15 people), and then defish it. The light is such I sometimes shoot @ f/2.8 & ISO 3200.

With more distance, I can often use narrower lenses, e.g. 35mm f/2


----------



## Carlosbcn (Nov 22, 2011)

As others said before me, I must strongly disagree with the Canon 8-15 f/4 buyers not being happy... Where did CR draw that info from? Of course I don't know everybody who has bought it, but every review I've read about this lens -and I've read a lot- was raving about the sharpness and quality of this lens (just a couple of reviewers were not specially enthusiastic).

But, even after reading such good reviews, I still thought the price was WAY too high for such a specialist lens, and the Canon 15mm f/2.8 was not available anymore at the stores I buy my lenses from, so I purchased the Sigma 15mm f/2.8... I won't go into details, just let me say I was very deceived and ended up returning it and paying more for a Canon 8-15mm... and wow, I'm loving it since the very first shot, absolutely amazing lens. I should have gone for it in the first place.

I don't care that much for the one stop difference, but I agree (1) it is very, very expensive, (2) the lens cap is a nightmare (how come they are able to design such an excellent 8-15 fisheye, and they can't design a bloody lens plastic cap that stays on???) and (3) the protruding front element is so exposed without the lenshood, that it is asking to be scratched.


----------



## NaturaLight (Nov 22, 2011)

I have the Sigma 15mm f2.8 - only non-Canon lens I own. Love it.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 22, 2011)

Canon Rumors Admin,

Can you elaborate on the critiques you've been hearing rumblings of on the 8-15 f/4L fisheye? I'm curious. Thanks man.


----------



## infared (Nov 22, 2011)

Glad that I bought the Canon Fisheye last year. For my use it is a "no-brainer", compared to the new fisheye zoom at $1500+ (well at least you don't/can't have the added expense of the B&W filter for this lens!!!). 
The 15mm f/2.8 is a GREAT lens, cost-effective and SMALL!!!!!! Since I own all L glass(except for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4) ....I even like the way the fisheye's little non-USM motor whirs. Its pretty cool and archaic..I like that. Oh...and the lens cap stays on pretty well too. I find it to be sharp and a great asset in my kit, with size and cost appropriate for use.
I am not really a fan of zooms or hunking around a giant chunk of glass (a stop slower) that I occasionally use. One that is apparently extremely prone to injury.
What I do not understand is why would Canon stop making the original fisheye lens. The new zoom is a specialty lens, certainly not a replacement to this tried-and-true performer??????????? Another plus is..the value of MY fisheye just went up to more than I paid for it. Cool!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 22, 2011)

Thats sad. I bought mine used for $250 two years ago. The owner had lost the cap and the hood had a slight bend. No damage to the glass. I have a filter thread straightner which not only straightened out the hood, but I expanded it until my new lens cap fit snugly and does not fall off. The lens is now better than new.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 22, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Gcon said:
> 
> 
> > What a lot of people don't realize is that you can use it on a full frame down to just below 14mm. The difference between 15mm and 14mm is quite large, and I'm really glad I've got that extra mm over the original one.
> ...


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm not saying this won't change in the next few days/hours, but this lens is still listed on Canon's US consumer website, both in the pro and consumer sections that mostly carry identical products but are simply organized slightly differently.


----------



## Pag (Nov 22, 2011)

For those looking for a fish eye to play around with, the Samyang 8mm f/3.5 is a great deal for the money. For about $300, you get a surprisingly sharp fish-eye lens for crop sensor bodies. It's fully manual, but that's not much of an issue since it's really easy to focus a fish-eye lens.

A few pictures I took with this lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pagarneau/sets/72157628100577905/


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 22, 2011)

Pag, those are really nice shots.


----------



## epsiloneri (Nov 22, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> Yes, at 14mm, (maybe even 13.75), there is no vignetting.



Since the EF 15/2.8 FE is supposed to be 180 degrees on the diagonal on FF, does that mean that the EF 8-15/4.0L FE @ 14mm displays _more_ that 180 degrees on the diagonal on FF? Or is the image distortion somehow different on the EF 8-15/4.0L FE such that the full 180 degrees are only displayed at <14mm? Does anyone know?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, at 14mm, (maybe even 13.75), there is no vignetting.
> ...



The diagonal angle of view for the 8-15mm ranges from 175Â°30' at 15mm to 180Â° at 14mm, and then remains at 180Â° from 14mm down to 8mm. The diagonal measure is the longest dimension in the image, while the vertical AoV is the smallest dimension (~92Â° at 14mm); all other lines you could draw through the frame are intermediate between 180Â° and 92Â°. As you zoom out to 8mm, all the other angles increase, until at 8mm, the vertical AoV achieves 180Â° (and thus all those intermediate lines are also 180Â°), and you have a circular image.

Hope that makes sense.

For a visual demonstration, check out the focal length comparisons in the TDP review - look at the extreme corners at 14mm as you mouseover to shorter lengths - the effect is probably easiest to see with the bottom row (hubcap), looking at the trees reflected in the extreme upper left corner. 

EDIT: Missed the bit about comparing 15mm on the original fisheye with 15mm on the fisheye zoom, but you can see that in the first-line mouseovers - they are pretty close at 15mm, and the zoom at 14mm has a slightly wider AoV, which implies that the either the fisheye zoom is seeing sightly wider than 180Â°, or more likely, the original prime is seeing slightly less. But also, IIRC the AoV is specified at infinity focus, and the zoom has a closer MFD, which may mean that the _actual_ diagonal AoV when the lens is focused at distances less than infinity decreases more for the prime than for the zoom.


----------



## keith_cooper (Nov 22, 2011)

Hardly surprising that Canon are retiring the old 15mm - USM motor and all

I've compared it to the new 8-15 and the zoom wins hands down - in fact this thread has reminded me that it's time for my 15mm to go on eBay, once I find the box etc ;-)

I just updated my review of the lens with a portrait of Michael Westmoreland at the preview for his 80th birthday exhibition. 

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_ef8-15f4l.html

if you don't know Michael's work - he's one of the key figures in the development of panoramic photography.

Given his work behind him, I just thought the 8-15 as the lens to use


----------

