I love wide angle. However, not sure about a fisheye

<p>Hey guys, thanks for taking the time to read my post. I recently picked up a 5DMK2 with the 24-70L 2.8. I honestly think I shoot at 24mm 90% of the time. I have been researching this and other sites for about an hour now and have some specific questions. I could really use some opinions from those who have had and currently have both wide angle and fisheye lenses. <br>

From my research it seems as though those who buy the 15mm sigma/canon fisheye use it for a short period only to sell the lens. I understand how this lens would only be used for certain situations. However, Im a bit confused on how someone could tire of a lens like this. Was the lens something you did not expect? Did shooting with that wide of an angle become unattractive after a while? Did the distortion that comes with fisheyes turn you off after a period of time? I have always loved super wide angle pictures. Maybe its all in personal preference?<br>

This has lead me to look into rectilinear lenses. From my research the most solid choice is the 14Lmm 2.8. With that said, this lens is way out of my budget (unless I sell my 24-70). This lens looks amazing and I would love to have it, but its just not in the cards at the present moment. I have searched here and FM.com and really havnt found any suitable substitutes. Do you guys have any ideas for me or advice? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>There are alternatives to the canon 14mm. I use the sigma 12-24mm on my 5d mark II, and is very happy with it. It is rectilinear (not fish-eye), and in fact have very little distortion (see photozone.de for test). I have tried the canon 14mm as well, I think they are about similar in optical quality. With wide angle, the technical quality of the picture is much up to the photograher, they can be difficult to master, especially flare problems, low contrast because of direct light etc.</p>

<p>Try less expensive primes like the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM or Tokina's discontinued AT-X 17mm f/3.5 rectilinear superwides before going to extreme focal lengths. And the fisheye aesthetic gets pretty old soon, and is not really suited for that many subjects.</p>

<p>If you are dead-set on 14mm, there is an old Tamron 14mm lens -- I have never seen it, though.</p>

<p>The 14mm is more of a speciality lens and the fisheye even more so.</p>

<p>I would consider either the 17-40mm or a similar ultra-wide zoom – you get much more creative flexibility.<br>

We had a participant on our recent trip, who had just bought the 14mm to compliment her 24-105mm, but soon realised she'd better gone for an UW zoom. It's quite a jump from 24 down to 14mm.</p>

<p>You may take a look at the 14mm f2.8 from samyang: <a href="http://www.samyang.pl/product,76,category,5,samyang_14mm_f28_if_ed_mc_aspherical">(link)</a> . Manual focus (not a great deal), but they are very cheap. I have the 8mm DX from them with no regreats.</p>

<p>It takes a very skilled photographer to create images with a fisheye that elicit any other response from the viewer than "Oh no, not <strong>another</strong> fisheye shot!". Much the same can be said of reverse tilt with a TS lens – with rare exceptions, when you've seen it done once, that's enough. It's even true to some extent of close-up/macro work; if you aren't actually interested in the subject matter – insects, flowers, or whatever – then the novelty soon wears off. So why don't you rent a fisheye and get it out of your system, then consider a rectilinear zoom to the wide side of your 24~70, for example the EF 17~40/4L or 16~35/2.8L II, both of which are excellent and versatile lenses for a wide variety of applications.</p>

<p>Another vote for Samyang 14/2.8. It's simply excellent and for the price unbeatable. Just make sure you buy the updated version! First ones were not that good and they're circulating the used market.<br /> Current version is 14/2.8 <strong>UMC</strong>.</p>

<p>Edit: New UMC-version costs only about $300 so buying "cheap" older version is not something I'd recommend.</p>

<p>I was about the start writing, then I read Robin's response and saw that it says EXACTLY what I was going to say!</p>

<p>Specialty lenses used for "creative" effect get old really quickly and tend to languish at the bottom of camera bags once the novelty has worn off. The same could be said for most "effects" filters, Lens Babys, etc.</p>

<p>The 16-35mm f2.8L II or 17-40mm f4L zooms complement your 24-70mm f2.8L perfectly on a full frame camera and will be infinitely more useful in the long run. If you can afford the 16-35 f2.8L II it's the better option for the extra stop and better performance at wide apertures. If you're shooting at around f8 to f11 you won't see a difference apart from the extra 1mm of focal length (which actually makes more difference than you'd think).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I really like my 15mm fisheye, have had it for years and won't be selling it, but, it gets limited use. Lens correction software is so good now you can take some, or all, of the distortion out of it very easily. When you do that it takes the image down to around a 16-17mm rectilinear image.</p>

<p>I found <a href="00XxUd">the 14mm a disappointing lens</a>, particularly for the money.</p>

<p>As Robin and John say, the 16-35 is far and away the best lens for you to look at next.</p>

<p>As mentioned above, the Canon EF 17-40 L is sweet, as is the Sigma 12-24 DG ASPH. Very little distortion with the Sigma, but keep people away from the far corners of the frame to avoid having them look like flat cardboard cut-out figures. Excellent for landscape work.</p>

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>If I were in your shoes, I would try the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L. It is a super wide angle, with a moderate apperture, solidly built and performs very well. The price is also very attractive, I think it is only US$ 150,00 more expensive than the 15mm fisheye from Canon and it is an L lens. I use this lens on my T2i and I love it.</p>

<p>[]'s <br>

Antonio</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the replies guys. All of the information is great! When I typically shoot I am stopped down to f/2.8 - f/4 unless shooting at night for long exposures. I have researched every lens suggested in this post. It seems as though the Sigma would fit my personal preferences the best. The only thing that concerns me is the higher aperture. As I have just stated, I usually shoot between f/2.8-f/4. Does this high of an aperture negate this lens as a walk around lens? <br>

Both of the canons suggested are great lenes. However, the IQ seems to disappoint for the 17-40L in most cases. Also, while the 16-35 is an amazing lens, I do not want to part with my 24-70L. However, I do feel as though I would open for a trade. Has anyone here ever traded straight up for a lens before? As with most 25 year olds I cant afford to be a brand snob :-). With that said, I had great luck with my 17-70 Sigma for my 40D and enjoy the sigma line. I do understand the 16-35 if exactly what I'm looking for, its just a bit too pricey for me at the moment. I have found this to be true with photography more than anything else " You always get what you pay for" </p>

<p>Thanks again for all of the replies.</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p>Everyone's needs are different of course, but the very last lens that I would give up would be my 24-70 f2.8L. On a full frame camera it's the perfect answer for a fast, standard telephoto. You're right to avoid the 17-40 f4L if you generally shoot around f2.8 - f4. Obviously f2.8 isn't an option and this lens isn't great wide open (very soft corners with quite a lot of CA). The 16-35mm f2.8 Mk I wasn't a lot better in that respect, but the Mk II is a marked improvement. </p>

<p>Clearly there are a lot of issues and compromises that go along with making ultra wide angle zoom lenses that cover full frame. I would make sure that you can test out any options you find quite thoroughly to make sure that you aren't disappointed.</p>

<p>If you are a Photoshop or Lightroom user the 15mm Canon Fish Eye is easily rendered into a rectilinear with the lens correction function. the shot below is un-cropped and shot on a fullframe canon 5D with the lens correction active in post processing:</p>

<p><a title="Grey Thru Color by LucaFoto!, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucafotogne/5357108451/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5357108451_692e1d3d7b_m.jpg" alt="Grey Thru Color" width="240" height="160" /></a></p>

<p>the lines look pretty orthogonal to me!</p>

<p>Call me old school. . .but I really don't like the concept of "correcting lens in Photoshop". Of COURSE, the first adjustment I make on photos in lightroom is a batch "lens correction". . . but I hate myself for doing it!</p>

<p>Of course, the real reason I don't like correcting images is because I make enough composition, lighting, exposure mistakes such that I *need* every ounce of perfection I can get as a starting point! Also. . . as you make more and more tweaks in these programs, you can definately get a distinctive "photoshopped" over corrected look.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I highly recommend buying used lenses to stretch your budget into the best lenses. keh.com is a good place to start.</p>

<p>I don't believe in defishing a fisheye either. It is a fisheye for a reason. I developed ultrawide-itis over the past 25 years, starting out with Canon FD lenses. I currently use Nikon 8/2.8 Circular fisheye, Nikon 14/2.8, and Nikon 28/2 for my wideangle photography both on full frame and crop bodies. Not to mention 65mm on 4x5. I still want a 15 or 16mm full frame fisheye as well.</p>

<p>I recommend sticking with rectilinear lenses for now. All the mainstream culprits have been mentioned above. I would add a used Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L (about the same price as a new 17-40/4 L) or Canon EF 20-35/2.8 L for quite a bit less. These were the predecessors to the 16-35/2.8 L and still extremely good lenses.</p>

<p>I am not sure why you always shoot at f2.8 but you may want to try some compositions where you want everything in focus from several inches to infinity at smaller apertures.</p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

<p>I've owned the Sigma 12-24 and own the Canon 17-40 f4L. I would get the Canon 17-40 f4. I was never totally sold on the optics of the Sigma. It is softish wide open and never gets super sharp no matter how much it is stopped down. The 17-40 f4 on the other hand is sharper and snappier at all apertures.<br>

In addition, unless you are a real estate agent shooting interiors, I doubt you actually need a lens going down to 12 or 14 mm. It is extremely difficult to get a good composition at such focal lengtht for most subjects because they take in such a wide field of view.<br>

I own the Canon 15 mm fisheye too. It is not a lens I use regularly or should be used regularly, but when you nail a fisheye shot that works it is like nothing else.</p>

<p>I'm shooting with a 50D, so APS-C format. I have a Canon 10-22mm and Tokina 10-17mm fisheye. (The Tokina works as a decent fisheye on full frame camera's too.) I like wide lenses, so I use the 10mm end of the Canon quite a bit, but I believe I actually use the 10mm end of the fisheye more than the rectilinear lens. I have yet to tire of the fisheye effect. I use it for weddings and other social events, around campfires on fishing trips, and I use it for just about everything in between. To each his own.</p>

<p>The rectilinear 17-40 or 16-35 is probably far more useful for most people, but some of us just have distorted vision. :)</p>

<p>Hi - in your shoes my wish list for wide angle on the 5DmkII would be 17-40 as a first choice. Going up in price, the 16-35 (the MkI is good if you can find a good used one). And going up in price even more, the Zeiss 21 Distagon f/2.8 - absolutely stunning image quality. I think you should take a serious look at the 17-40 - it's a popular lens, it's reasonably priced, it gives excellent results, and would be easy enough to sell on if you didn't like it or further down the line when you want to upgrade more. Good luck with your choice.</p>

<blockquote>From my research it seems as though those who buy the 15mm sigma/canon fisheye use it for a short period only to sell the lens. I understand how this lens would only be used for certain situations. However, Im a bit confused on how someone could tire of a lens like this.</blockquote>

<p>I still have my Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye. It is an f/2.8 lens which forms a part of my tools of photography. There are no immediate plans on selling this lens.</p>