# Best fisheye for canon.



## Nate (May 16, 2013)

Hi, 

I am looking to get a fisheye for my 5D3, but I can not find any site where I can compare the image quality. Not even the-digital-picture has any sample shots.

The canon 8-15 is out of the range of what I want to spend.

I was thinking on a second canon 15 2.8 or a sigma.

What are my possibilities? Anyone had both of them? Also how is Rokinon?

What else I could consider?

I do not mind manual focus if its way sharper that the ones with auto focus.

Also, I could not find it. If I take a picture with a fisheye and than de-fisheye it do I loose a lot of image quality?

Thank you very much!


----------



## eml58 (May 16, 2013)

I own both the 15f/2.8 Canon & the 8-15f/4 Canon, I use them Primarily for Underwater Photography, the 8-15f/4 @ 15mm is streets ahead of the much older 15f/2.8.

I also own the Zeiss 15f/2.8 Distagon T, but it's a Manual Focus Lens, and damn expensive, but it Kills both the above mentioned Lenses, including the Canon 14f/2.8 L II, which I also own & used a lot until I purchased the Zeiss.

I also have the new 17 & 24 Canon TSE lenses, but again, they are somewhat expensive and Manual Focus, the Image quality though is superb.

I dont have any experience with other Brands on the Super WA side unfortunately, but if you can afford the Zeiss and don't mind Manual Focus, you cant go wrong.


----------



## lol (May 16, 2013)

The Rokinon (a.k.a. Samyang) is a crop sensor lens. It'll fit on a full frame camera but you get a small rectangular image due to the built in lens hood. If you cut off the hood, you get a cropped circle in the middle instead, but still wont cover the whole sensor. Note the lens cap fits onto the hood if you're considering that. All in, I wouldn't recommend this lens for a full frame sensor, unless you have a very particular need for it to fill. It is great value for crop bodies though.


----------



## noisejammer (May 16, 2013)

I use an Zuiko OM 16/5.5 FE with a Fotodiox Pro adapter on a 5D2. Image quality is great and the colours are well saturated. See for example this... 





In case the image tag didn't work, here's a link.http://flic.kr/p/bUjf4u

The lens has built in orange and iirc green filters - useful for B&W but of limited value for a digital camera unless you have MaxMax convert it. The lens also works well on my X-E1 ... a 24mm equivalent fisheye is a strange but likeable beastie.

I picked mine up from KEH for about $600, so price wise, it's halfway between the 8-15L and a Samyang.


----------



## infared (May 16, 2013)

Pick- up a used (maybe new on eBay), Canon 15mm f/2.8). Small, sharp and well built...I even like the whirring of the older focus motor...it is a cute novelty. Fisheye shooting is a lot of fun.


----------



## Nate (May 16, 2013)

so at around $600 the sharpest lens I can get is the canon 15 2.8?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 16, 2013)

Nate said:


> so at around $600 the sharpest lens I can get is the canon 15 2.8?


Yes.

I own the Canon EF15, it is a much better lens than the 14mm for a fraction of the money (well my 15 is better than the two 14mm lenses I have used). It is not just a one trick pony either, with software being so powerful now things like FisheyeHemi make it a really useful lens.


----------



## Nate (May 16, 2013)

And what about the quality loss at de-fisheyeing?


----------



## Random Orbits (May 16, 2013)

Nate said:


> And what about the quality loss at de-fisheyeing?



Defishing degrades IQ more toward the edges and especially the corners because those are the areas that need to be stretched out more. However, a defished image is still "wider" than a 14mm prime, so it does have some unique capabilities. A defished image will lose to good UWA lenses, but may be good enough anyway if subject is not at the edges/corners and if you're not demanding edge-to-edge sharpness (i.e. landscapes). Most likely, the IQ loss won't be obvious for web sizes, but it will when viewed 1:1.


----------



## Nate (May 16, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I own both the 15f/2.8 Canon & the 8-15f/4 Canon, I use them Primarily for Underwater Photography, the 8-15f/4 @ 15mm is streets ahead of the much older 15f/2.8.



When you have some time can you please put 4 full sized jpegs, taken with the 8-15 @ 15 and the 15 2.8, both at f4 and f11.

I am just interested in the difference. 

Thank you!


----------



## eml58 (May 17, 2013)

Wasn't able to find exactly what you wanted, but I've attached a couple of Images so it may help.

Keep in mind the "Fish Eye" effect is lessened considerably Underwater, mainly due to the Curvature of the Housing Dome, what you do still get is Fall Off to the edges & mostly the corners, using software for Underwater Images to "fix" the distortion is often a lesson in futility.

At 15mm the 8-15f/4 is just simply streets ahead of the older 15f/2.8, but it comes at a price difference, and the 8-15f/4 at less than say 14mm is of debatable real value (to me), although I have seen a lot of very nice Images even @ 8mm, so it's always going to be down to the user & their "artistic" view, someone posted earlier about the positive value of the older 15f/2.8, and they are right, it's a good Lens as well, it's just not up to the IQ of the 8-15f/4.

The Manta Shot: 5DMK II 8-15F/4, Shot @ f/7.1 & 1/125th ISO200

My Son's First Dive B&W: 5DMK II 15f/2.8, Shot @ f/8.0 & 1/125th ISO100


----------



## Brand B (May 17, 2013)

lol said:


> The Rokinon (a.k.a. Samyang) is a crop sensor lens. It'll fit on a full frame camera but you get a small rectangular image due to the built in lens hood. If you cut off the hood, you get a cropped circle in the middle instead, but still wont cover the whole sensor. Note the lens cap fits onto the hood if you're considering that. All in, I wouldn't recommend this lens for a full frame sensor, unless you have a very particular need for it to fill. It is great value for crop bodies though.



On the other hand, it's on sale for $229 at adorama today.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 17, 2013)

As I have said I found my 15mm fisheye to be better than the two 14mm Canon lenses I have used.

Here is an image shot with the 15, the second is the same image defished with FisheyeHemi and stretched to retain aspect ratio. The third is a 100% crop from the defished image corner. No post processing other than auto Lightroom import basics.


----------



## lol (May 17, 2013)

Brand B said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > The Rokinon (a.k.a. Samyang) is a crop sensor lens. It'll fit on a full frame camera but you get a small rectangular image due to the built in lens hood. If you cut off the hood, you get a cropped circle in the middle instead, but still wont cover the whole sensor. Note the lens cap fits onto the hood if you're considering that. All in, I wouldn't recommend this lens for a full frame sensor, unless you have a very particular need for it to fill. It is great value for crop bodies though.
> ...


Attached shows the coverage of the Samyang on a full frame body. You can kinda see the image circle it gives which you can expand into if you cut off the hood. There are some examples out on the internet of people who have cut off the hood.


----------



## infared (May 17, 2013)

eml....GREAT images...especially love the one of your son....fantastic composition, focus point...it has it all!!!!
I was not aware of the IQ (sharpness) differences between the old Canon 15mm f/2.8 and the new Canon 8-15mm Zoom @ 15mm, (but you know your stuff so I am not questioning your observation).Since the new zoom is 24 years newer...I guess it should have better IQ! LOL!
What the 8-15mm brings to the table is weather sealing, more versatility (I have no real interest in making circular images on my FF...just not my thing) and better flare & CA control....
I have to say...I rarely use my 15mm, but do enjoy the process...many times I get it out of the bag and check a scene only to put it away as it is not working for me...one has to choose ones images carefully with that lens. I find the small size and lesser cost are also benefits to me for a lens that is not used that often. ...and I have to say that I find that the images that I do take with the lens to be plenty sharp, even for the age of the design. They are very sharp across the frame. I do need my CA sliders in LR for this lens, too...no doubt...but it cleans up nicely. Cost around $600 on ebay...could be cheaper if you get lucky.
I have noticed that some posts are bringing up the Canon 14mm, and also the Zeiss 15mm (killer lens) and the Canon 17mm TSE (double killer lens)...but, (respectfully) these are all rectilinear lenses and I just don't see how they fit into a "fisheye" discussion...They do not apply for me in this context. If I want a fisheye...I WANT the curvature and distortion. That is the whole point to me when I grab that lens.  (now if our discussion was about running fisheye shots thru software to remove distortion, I could see those comparisons to be useful).
I guess it would be nice to have the new 8-15mm zoom on site...but the cost, weight and size (vs. amount of use) deter me from that purchase...although apparently the IQ is better. (Have looked for side-by-side image comparisons of the 15mm f/2.8 vs. Canon 8-15mm f/4L on the web @ 15mm...but am coming up empty )


----------



## Nate (May 17, 2013)

infared said:


> I guess it would be nice to have the new 8-15mm zoom on site...but the cost, weight and size (vs. amount of use) deter me from that purchase...although apparently the IQ is better. (Have looked for side-by-side image comparisons on the web @ 15mm...but am coming up empty )



Yes, I could not find any good compaction ether...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 17, 2013)

lol said:


> The Rokinon (a.k.a. Samyang) is a crop sensor lens. It'll fit on a full frame camera but you get a small rectangular image due to the built in lens hood. If you cut off the hood, you get a cropped circle in the middle instead, but still wont cover the whole sensor.



This lens is now made with a detachable hood, which I've bought. The image circle is 29mm, or a wee over, just enough to cover a Nikon DX sensor.

I can shoot a couple of pictures on a 5Dmk3 without the hood and upload the result somewhere, if anyone's interested.


----------



## nda (May 17, 2013)

i have the canon 15mm fisheye picked it up used on ebay for $650 a couple of weeks ago. i have used the 8-15L my photo buddy has one and i was going to get one my self but, i couldn't part with the price of entry for the L zoom just to expensive for a specialized lens for occasional use so i went for the alternative, wonderful lens, sharp at f/2.8, fun to use and reasonably cheap, recommended


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 17, 2013)

Nate said:


> I was thinking on a second canon 15 2.8 or a sigma.
> 
> What are my possibilities? Anyone had both of them? Also how is Rokinon?



I have the Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 and the Rokinon, but do notice that (a) the former is an FF lens, and the later is a crop factor lens, (b) the lenses have different projections.


----------



## infared (May 17, 2013)

nda said:


> i have the canon 15mm fisheye picked it up used on ebay for $650 a couple of weeks ago. i have used the 8-15L my photo buddy has one and i was going to get one my self but, i couldn't part with the price of entry for the L zoom just to expensive for a specialized lens for occasional use so i went for the alternative, wonderful lens, sharp at f/2.8, fun to use and reasonably cheap, recommended



So....can you borrow your bud's Zoom and give us a side-by-side at 15mm f/4 with a 100% crop for comparison???!!!!???!!!!???? 
Actually ...I don't really need it...I am very happy with my Canon 15mm f/2.8..paid same price as you..bought it new just as the 8-15mm zoom hit the market. Its a cool lens, and perfect for "my" needs!!!!!


----------



## Nate (May 17, 2013)

Yes that would be nice, if you could borrow the 8-15.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 17, 2013)

Nate said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it would be nice to have the new 8-15mm zoom on site...but the cost, weight and size (vs. amount of use) deter me from that purchase...although apparently the IQ is better. (Have looked for side-by-side image comparisons on the web @ 15mm...but am coming up empty )
> ...



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


----------



## sandymandy (May 17, 2013)

lol said:


> Attached shows the coverage of the Samyang on a full frame body. You can kinda see the image circle it gives which you can expand into if you cut off the hood. There are some examples out on the internet of people who have cut off the hood.



The latest Samyang fisheye has a removable hood.


----------



## Deva (May 17, 2013)

For what it's worth, I recently picked up my 8-15mm for £400 - courtesy of Canon's spring cashback (£155), and a clearout of my cupboard of old photo gear in part-exchange (farewell, my original 5D). I've been very happy with it - as you can imagine, I've been struggling not to overuse it. Creating 360 panoramas (using Hugin on the Mac) has been a particular pleasure.

You may be interested in Canon's recent article on the 8-15mm, with Jeff Ascough talking about using it as a wedding lens: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/technical/shooting_weddings.do


----------



## nda (May 17, 2013)

infared said:


> nda said:
> 
> 
> > i have the canon 15mm fisheye picked it up used on ebay for $650 a couple of weeks ago. i have used the 8-15L my photo buddy has one and i was going to get one my self but, i couldn't part with the price of entry for the L zoom just to expensive for a specialized lens for occasional use so i went for the alternative, wonderful lens, sharp at f/2.8, fun to use and reasonably cheap, recommended
> ...



everybody body wants to pixel peep, yes the L is better at f/4 but not at f/2.8  it's a better lens all round but only slightly better for double the price its not twice as good, it's my only non L lens but as infared said "it's a cool lens" I concur.


----------



## lol (May 18, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> lol said:
> 
> 
> > Attached shows the coverage of the Samyang on a full frame body. You can kinda see the image circle it gives which you can expand into if you cut off the hood. There are some examples out on the internet of people who have cut off the hood.
> ...


Thanks for the info. I didn't realise they had updated the design since I got mine early on. That makes it a bit more interesting for full frame use, even if it doesn't cover the whole sensor.


----------



## Pi (May 18, 2013)

I bought the Sigma 15 but had to return it. It was overexposing (inconsistently), the corners were mushy at any f-stop, darker and discolored, the colors were OK but not quite right. I bought a used Canon 15 which is a much better lens. 




Times Square 




New York


----------



## infared (May 18, 2013)

"I bought the Sigma 15 but had to return it. It was overexposing (inconsistently), the corners were mushy at any f-stop, darker and discolored, the colors were OK but not quite right. I bought a used Canon 15 which is a much better lens. "m

I agree completely...the old Canon is the best buy...love the shot of Times Square...it's workin!


----------



## Phil L (May 21, 2013)

Since I knew I was not going to be using it very often and I only wanted something to fool around with, back before Christmas when B&H had a 2 day sale I got the Rokinon 8mm for $214.
It's manual everything but that's OK I'm used enough to that.
I have been very happy with this lens and I feel for the price the IQ is excellent.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 22, 2013)

The best fisheye available for Canon (and any system) is the new ef 8-15mm f4 L fisheye. It's the best of the bunch by a long way. It combines full circular 8mm through to 16mm and every point inbetween and some fun zoom bursts too. In my opinion, save and buy the best and let it be the last fisheye you ever buy.
The best fisheye for you....is dependent on your budget and is a personal choice.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The best fisheye available for Canon (and any system) is the new ef 8-15mm f4 L fisheye. It's the best of the bunch by a long way. It combines full circular 8mm through to 16mm and every point inbetween and some fun zoom bursts too. In my opinion, save and buy the best and let it be the last fisheye you ever buy.
> The best fisheye for you....is dependent on your budget and is a personal choice.



Well that is a purely personal opinion, after all I use my fisheye more than most and I have no desire for the 8-15. I don't want the gimmick circular image with horrific CA once, let alone pay for it and carry it always.

As for IQ at 15mm, my Canon prime is very high quality (my testing showed it outperformed two different Canon 14mm lenses even when defished) and all aberrations are easily corrected; and it shoots at f2.8 for half the money and less weight than the zoom f4. Just because it doesn't have a red ring does not mean it isn't the best tool for the job. The 85 f1.8 is another very good example.

For me the zoom is a curiosity that I have no intention of buying, it has no additional functionality for my picture taking than the prime does and is not worth the addition cost.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 22, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The best fisheye available for Canon (and any system) is the new ef 8-15mm f4 L fisheye. It's the best of the bunch by a long way. It combines full circular 8mm through to 16mm and every point inbetween and some fun zoom bursts too. In my opinion, save and buy the best and let it be the last fisheye you ever buy.
> ...



As I said, functionally the zoom has no equal and is the best fisheye currently available, fact end of...no more discussion. All other choices are personal based on shooting requirements and what you are already using. 
I'm suprised to hear you say that an 8mm fish is a gimmic, after all we are talking about fisheye lenses here....they are all low use one trick pony type of lenses....although the zoom is a little more functional. But they are all gimmic lenses.

I've tried most fisheyes on the market and sold many. An 8mm circular fish can be a lot of fun and to disregard it's photographic possibilities is a little narrow minded in my opinion. To say that there's lots of CA makes me wonder if you've even used one. The two copies of the Sigma 15mm fish I've owned had slightly better optics to the old Canon 15mm fish I had. But the newer f4 Canon Zoom has less than either of them, it's still got a tad of CA but it's a lot lower than the primes. Oh and by the way, it's weather sealed...another common L feature which often gets over looked. 

The 85mm f1.8 is a fantastic lens. But I sold my copy for an 85mm f1.2 L with offered me even more creativity and light gathering ability than the f1.8 version. I chose it for that reason and not for it's red ring. Although some people seem to have an Anti-L thang going on....generally the L lenses are a bit better in most areas (build, AF speed, weather sealing, robustness and often in IQ). But for a lot of photographers (non pro) they don't need those extra features or cost. I see so many 70-200/f2.8's about these days where the photographer looks like they have only handled a camera for a few weeks....poor shooting technique and awful posture and hand position. Holding their camera and not the lens like someone holding a pint of Guiness...oh boy!


----------



## Pi (May 22, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The two copies of the Sigma 15mm fish I've owned had slightly better optics to the old Canon 15mm fish I had.



I have exactly the opposite experience. Side by side, the Canon was noticeably better than the Sigma. Equal in the center, and much better in the corners. Better color. I am not so sensitive to corner performance usually but with fisheye lenses, it matters. This is based on two Canon copies and one Sigma one. The poor corner resolution of the Sigma is well documented.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Well it might have more functionality than any other fisheye "fact end of......", but if you have no use for that functionality it is worse than useless. If I was still shooting APS-H it would be good, if you have ff and crop cameras it is a no brainer too, but I don't, I am FF only which means I get a 15mm full frame fisheye and an 8mm circular fisheye. I hate the circular fisheye look and have no interest in it, as for CA I meant on the edge of the frame, not across it, look at the edges of nearly every single circular image here http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_ef8-15f4l.html If I wanted to take pictures of rainbows I would be a landscape shooter!

Obviously if somebody wants a full frame fisheye and a circular one, one lens that does both makes sense, similarly if they have mixed sensor sizes the zoom makes sense, if, like me, you just have full frame sensors and are only interested in the full frame fisheye framing then the zoom is not the best buy, the 15mm Canon is, fact end of...no more discussion. 

As for the 85, sure the 1.2 is a "better" portrait lens, but try shooting badly illuminated gym basketball in AF with one, in that instance the 1.8 wipes the floor with the 1.2.

As for the full frame fisheye being a one trick pony, well you obviously see a smaller envelope than me. Here is a shot from a Canon 15mm fisheye that you would have missed living in your smaller gimmick lens meme, I didn't, I saw outside it. A full frame fisheye can be used in all sorts of situations and I have found it to be very flexible, unlike a circular fisheye which really does give you one, very compromised, image.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 22, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



So let me get this straight..you are judging a fisheye's quality but how it can be de-fished???
There are far better ways of getting rectilinear corrected wide images. A TS-e 17L or a Siggi 12-24mm come to mind. Even a 16-35IIL covers a more versatile view of the world. 
Currently, the only Canon fisheye on sale is the zoom. The prime was discontinued shortly before it's release. So unless one buys one second hand, they are no longer available. 

You are welcome to view my portfolio and maybe then you can decide if I have a narrow envelope in photography. PS, I've been a full frame photographer for the last 10 years and I was a film photographer a long time before that. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/ 

As to the 85L being used for sports....well that's just silly, there are loads of other lenses far better suited to that role...like a 135L. Einstein said "don't just a fish by it's ability to climb a tree". The same is true of the 85L, what it does in the right hands is exceptional.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2013)

> "So let me get this straight..you are judging a fisheye's quality but how it can be de-fished???"


No, of course not. You are the one who said the full frame fisheye is a _"low use one trick pony type of lens"_ I was just illustrating that it isn't, however the circular fisheye is. I was responding to your strawman and you then tried to turn that around to belittle my input. :



> "Currently, the only Canon fisheye on sale is the zoom. The prime was discontinued shortly before it's release. So unless one buys one second hand, they are no longer available."



Actually the prime was available for a while after the zooms release, but did you read the OP's actual question? He stated this _"The canon 8-15 is out of the range of what I want to spend. I was thinking on a second [hand] canon 15 2.8 or a sigma."_ Clearly you didn't.

With regards your Flicker feed and websites, I have nothing polite or pertinent to say.

As for the 85mm comment, again you are throwing up a strawman argument and you compound your error as you have obviously never shot high school basketball, if you had you would know the 85 f1.8 is practically de rigueur, my original comment was just that the biggest and highest spec lens is not necessarily the most appropriate for a specific task, something that would have been patently obvious had you tried to shoot that high school basketball with your 85 f1.2. Many people consider it to be the best lens available for the task, there certainly are not _"loads of other lenses far better suited to that role"_.

Clearly, had you read the OP's opening comment, you would have realised your strong opinion about the 8-15 zoom is a nonstarter. Too much money and unrequested functionality, apart form those two fundamental criteria I think you nailed it. DOH!


----------

