Canon EF 8-15/4 L fisheye zoom samples (6 600x400 pics)

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by zml, Aug 11, 2011.

  1. zml

    zml

    If you are interested, here are some unprocessed FF (from a 1Ds3) samples from the Canon's newest and greatest, 8-15/4 L fish eye zoom lens taken handheld at f/8 at the focal lengths marked on the lens (8,10,12,14 and 15 mm) from a vey close distance (around 8 inches) at ISO 200, f/8, 1/60s, just to show its behavior for close ups. My lens did not need any MFA adjustments for bulls eye focus.

    In my brief experience (I got the lens last week but didn't have time to shoot much) the zoom is more contrasty and sharper than my Canon EF 15/2.8 (center sharpness, of course, one has to judge the fish eye optics using slightly different criteria) and miles above Zenitar and Peleng fish eyes (don't have any experience with Sigma.) The lens is very solidly built, smooth in operation, weather sealed, and focuses ultra fast and noise free (the owneres of the EF 15 mm fish eye know what I mean...)

    Some random notes:
    - vignetting below 14 mm with the lens shade on a FF rig (the lens shade locks positively with a little pushbutton, BTW...) for my purposes it is pretty much lens-shade off use. The pictures here were taken without the lens shade.
    - the f#*&ing lens cap cannot be used directly on the lens, needs to be mounted on the lens shade
    - the f#*&ing lens cap falls off by itself quite esily (it's a rubber band time...)
    - CA (blue) galore around the outer ring on the circular image regardless of the f/stop used but it is better controlled at longer focal lengths (CA is not objectionable for that lens type and corectable with software, BTW...)
    - hard to keep one's body parts out of the picture at 8-12 mm with a FF body (my kneecap is in two pictures...)
    - gelatin filters can be used (via a frame in the rear of the lens.)
    Great lens if you have an application for it. Now, if I can only figure out how to mount it in my underwater housing without sacrificing its functionality...
    8mm
    [​IMG]
    10 mm
    [​IMG]
    12 mm
    [​IMG]
    14 mm
    [​IMG]
    15 mm
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Thanks for those Michael,
    Interesting that your comparison to the current 15mm is that the new zoom has more contrast and is sharper, my 15 is very sharp but I am interested in an upgrade. Other reviews I have seen have suggested the older, but fixed focal length, fisheye is a touch sharper particularly towards the edges.
     
  3. zml

    zml

    I'm not sure about the edge sharpness (need to mount the camera on a tripod and shoot some newsprint, not my favorite thing to do...) but the center is visibly sharper than on the 15 mm. Probably not very significant in real life unless the next FF rig from Canon is way above 30 mpixels.
    (And, of course, there are 5 images attached to the OP, not 6...)
     
  4. Is there a software that will process the 15mm shots into a rectilinear format. DxO did with some older Canon zooms. It would have increased ultility if that is a possibility.
     
  5. David,
    Adobe LightRoom and Photoshop both correct the 15mm for rectilinear, the results are adjustable too. I am sure it won't be long before there is a true profile for the new zoom.
    You can create your own too via the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator utility.
     
  6. Yep, seems a heckuvalot better than the cheaper alternatives.
    I'd even go so far as to say that it outshines the Spiratone/Samigon X0.15 adapter! ;)
    If you wanted rectilinear, why wouldn't you just go out a get a rectilinear ultrawide angle?
    A fisheye is for doing fisheye stuff.
    00ZAwK-388823584.jpg
     
  7. JDM,
    In my experience a corrected 15mm image is every bit as good as an EF 14 mm f2.8 L image at a fraction the cost. If the 8-15 can replace two lenses in a bag and have better AF and weather sealing then I am buying one. In the days of film a fisheye was for fisheye stuff, now it isn't limited to only that.
     
  8. If you say so, but I'd rather spherize a rectilinear image when I needed fisheye than try to use a fisheye for the "default" setting.
     
  9. JDM,
    You lose too much diagonal fov going from rectilinear to full frame fisheye. The other great advantage of the new zoom is that I will, at last, have an ultrawide for my 1.3 crop cameras.
     
  10. JDM von Weinberg asked:
    "If you wanted rectilinear, why wouldn't you just go out a get a rectilinear ultrawide angle?
    A fisheye is for doing fisheye stuff."​
    Why would you buy two lenses when one will do?
     
  11. Michael - can I ask you to post a few crops. Say 8mm at the centre and edge and 15mm the same. I shoot the 15mm Canon and the 8mm Sigma F3.5 but I am clearly interested in the upgrade. For reference the F3.5 sigma is a lot better than the Samyangs etc... but not as good as the Canon 15mm. The sigma really needs to be shot at F8 for best results.
     
  12. Here is a review of this lens at LensTip.com, along with many sample images.
    http://www.lenstip.com/311.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_8-15_mm_f_4_L_Fisheye_USM_Introduction.html
     
  13. Why would you buy two lenses when one will do?​
    And if you are buying one expensive lens, which should be the default? The often rarely used special-effect lens, or the one that can be used much of the time?
    As I said, "if you say so", and I speak as one who has 2 true fisheye lenses and more than two fisheye adapters.
    And why in the world would you only want "one lens"?
    This concept I do not understand. ;)
     
  14. JDM,
    It is not a case of one lens, it is a case of one less lens. Who wants to carry a 14, 15, 16-35, a 17 TS-E and a 24 TS-E (not unusual for a shoot), if you can cover the same bases with an 8-15 (and software), a 16-35, a 17 TS-E and a 1.4 TC? Five lenses or three, I know which I would rather carry.
     
  15. Scott, I am yanking your chain; but I still really do prefer lenses built to do the job they're to do.
    I'm saving for my 17mm TS-E, but I'd sure rather use the perspective control lens I do have than to "correct" in post processing, although I have done that where I don't have a choice.
    To have a lens, does not mean you have to tote it along every time--Just the ones you rationally can expect to use. When an emergency opportunity crops up, then obviously shoot with what you have.
    You can open a paint can with a screwdriver, if you like.
    "Don't make me no nevermind" as the old farmer told us once.
     
  16. Some of us welcomed the 21st Century and others were drug, kicking and screaming, into it.
    Some of us prefer a tool that'll perform several tasks extremely well on several sensor systems and some of us prefer to collect limited use lenses and adapt them to systems they're not intended for.
    Some of us prefer film and some us prefer digital.
    Some of understand and some of us don't.
     
  17. Playing with this lens, I've noticed that it's widest diagonal a-o-v (in full-frame fisheye mode) comes at just over 14mm as indicated on the zoom ring. Reduce the focal length from there and corner cropping / vignetting becomes visible, raise it and the a-o-v tightens noticeably- it seems that 15mm isn't the default full-frame fisheye "maximum". For comparison's sake this is on an EOS 1V body, a zero-crop (1x) film body.
    And regarding the lens cap's overly light release action, it uses a circular plastic "spring" on its backside for tension. I think that force could be augmented by gluing a couple of elastomer bumpers behind it...
     
  18. David - I assume you are not a fan of film cameras as you appear to be suggesting that those of use that like film cameras do not understand. I am clearly in this camp as I am not even sure what I am supposed to understand.
    Professional photography is understandably a digital business (large format fine art excepted). However many of us no longer shoot for money - I am in that camp. I do shoot the latest digital AF equipment (EOS 5DII, 1DIIN, 7D all 3 F2.8 zooms plus lenses like the 17F4 TS) and the image quality and ability to shoot at ISO 3200 handheld in a cathedral without a tripod and get a good colour image is amazing. Similarly shooting ski racing is a breeze compared to my days with a "New F1". But...
    If it is a hobby what is wrong with film cameras - the quality can be very good (a scanned image from my Fuji GX680 is better quality and higher resolution than my 5DII). But there is a significant handling and feel difference between some of the old film cameras and modern DSLRs. Some are much slower and deliberate like my Fuji GX680. Others have significantly better handling and construction than the current 1, 5 and 7 series bodies. The FD series T90 is probably the best handling camera Canon has made. The old F1 is constructed in a manner than no modern canon is built. And the viewfinders of many of these cameras are much better than the current EOS viewfinders (the AF secondary mirror and focusing screen make them a top worse than my "New" F1s.
    Finally film cameras can be a lot cheaper to own - My EOS digital bodies have cost me probably $3000+ in depreciation. My Leica is worth a lot more than I paid and even my FD bodies have not lost a lot (before inflation they are worth more).
    Before you criticize those who shoot film you should try it. Photography is a hobby as well as a profession. Do you criticize people who buy an old XKE Jaguar because they can get a Hyundai with better performance?
     
  19. Wow Phillip, you really misinterpreted my post. My point is that some people like some things and some like other things.
    My first camera was a penhole camera that I made myself. My first factory-made camera was a medium format TLR. My next camera was a Pentax Spotmatic, etc., etc. I lived with film for decades. The old Yashica 44 still sits in a place of honor.
    I shoot a few thousand shots per month with my 5D MkII and 7D because they're much better tools for what I do. With the 7D I can shoot wildlife and birds at 7-frames per second and not have to carry around pounds of very expensive film. Trying to get birds in flight or poses with an eye light, perfect head angle, etc. might mean 100 shots for every keeper.
    When I'm processing I can quickly review the ones for the trash and always remember that they didn't cost me anything after I bought the camera and lens. Also, I'm seeing results within an hour of shooting. Yes, the body depreciates, but I don't have any film costs. Bodies are expendable, lenses are keepers. Still, I plan to use the cameras for 100,000 clicks each, even if I have to replace a shutter or two.
    I really enjoy that my RAW conversion software (DxO Optics Pro) will adjust for geometric lens distortion, CA, vignetting, etc., which could not be done practically with film. Zoom lenses now provide optical accuracy approaching the very best prime lenses of the past. As part of RAW conversion I can crop to my own specification, doing internet crops (free of any restriction other than making it look good) or print aspect ratio.
    Late at night next week in NYC I'll be able to take my 5D MkII out and shoot hand held street scenes at ISO 6400 with incredibly low noise, IN COLOR.
    Some people really enjoy stroking their Leicas and talking about what it's worth. If I had one it'd be on a shelf right next to my Yashica. I understand those needs. I've got very expensive guitars that I do much the same thing with. For photography I prefer tools that allow me to get the images that I like.
    There's nothing wrong with stroking you Leica. Admit it, you do it. I stroke "Brownie" my Ken Parker mahogany backed archtop guitar. I stroke my V8 BMW M3. I stroke my 1960 gold plated Schilke trumpet, etc., etc. The cameras I use are just the best I can afford for the kind of shooting that I do and they're digital. My one relic from the film era sits on a shelf and will never be used again. I don't have the slightest bit of nostalgia for actually putting some film in it again.
    BTW, I own two Hyundai. I would only criticize a Jag owner unless they somehow thought their car was better performing than either of my Hyundai. The XKE was never a great performing car and always one of the most unreliable choices possible. In the 1960s I would have preferred a 356 Porsche to a Jag, BUT I understand why many are attracted to the very special styling. I loved the sound of the Jag's striaght six. I'm into new cars (modded M3) but I understand why some people like old cars. It's simply two different options, just like film vs. digital.
     
  20. zml

    zml

    Philip: I'll post some real life (above the water) crops on Monday or Tuesday in this thread or start another thread if this one gets bumped off the main screen - I have rigged my underwater housing for this lens and plan on submerging it ASAP :)
    Overall I'm very pleased with the lens: technological tour de force in such a compact package - unbelievable! Can't wait for the 200-400 + 1.4x TC zoom...
     
  21. Oooo, I'm jonesing for the 200-400 with 1.4x also. I'm afraid that it'll be more like 10-grand.
     
  22. zml

    zml

    Here is a review of this lens at LensTip.com, along with many sample images.​
    Something seems to be wrong with their setup because the 15 mm FF shot shows vignetting in the upper left hand corner that I don't see (like the testers I also shoot with 1Ds3.) Same with 14 mm: I see much less vignetting, and it is symmetrical, unlike on their samples. FWIW: since there are no positive indents on the focal length ring moving the ring a bit changes things significantly: my setting was dead center between numbers 1 and 4 for the 14 mm and all the way to the right for the 15 mm. IMO that's way too much difference that can be accounted for by sample-to-sample variations.
     
  23. zml

    zml

    Then again it might be a dark building getting into the frame from the left side. But it surely looks like vignetting... so-so choice of framing: if one wants to avoid cropping in post, WA/FE lenses require a lot of attention while framing.
     
  24. I have to say I for one think the 8-14mm is a real "pig in a poke". An ultra expensive lens that has a use for probably 0.001% of photographic situations. The original 15mm fisheye seemed to me to fit the bill if you needed a EOS fisheye at less than half the price. The 8-15mm seems like a lens destined solely for renting for the rare occasion one actually needs it. In my opinion it is possibly the least interesting and least useful Canon lens of the last 10 years.
     
  25. Michael - thanks for offering to post the crops as i want to see if it is worth my switching. The 15 f2.8 and 8 f3.5 should raise about $1100 but it will still cost $400+ to change so I am very interested in seeing how much performance improvement I will see.
    David - Just because digital works for you no not assume that everyone acts the same way. For reference I shot 3280 digital EOS in the last 6 weeks compared to about 150 on film. While I may stroke my Leica (Contax, FD bodies and MF bodies) I actually shoot them so they are not pristine collectors models.
    Clearly for birds my 7D (mine shoots 8fps by the way) and my 1DIIN are much better choices than a film body as AF and cost factors are important. That said I have shot birds with film bodies as my EOS 1Vs and 1NRS will shoot 10fps.
    In terms of shooting ISO6400 with the 5DII I generally find this setting quite noisy and prefer to try and limit mine to ISO3200. But even then you seem to be saying that your 5DII and zoom can shoot (your capitals) at ISO 6400 in colour. So if I assume you are using the 24-70 F2.8 zoom and need 1/60 of a second shutter speed you can shoot in LV of 3. But if we look at the Leica I usually use an F1.4 35mm - being a rangefinder I can shoot at 1/15 handheld with ease and using ISO 400 film it is also possible to shoot COLOUR in LV3. Obviously you can get an F1.4 35 mm for you Canon but of course there is F1 lenses available for Leica (the Voigtlander ones are cheaper than the Canon 35 f1.4).
    In terms of digital processing you may not be aware that it works with film as well. While I sometimes process B&W wet because a digital printer based process does not quite give the results of the wet process I do all colour digitally. Once you have scanned a print of slide you can open it in Camera Raw and process digitally. Interestingly film generally requires a lot less processing than digital.
    You really have to think about the best tool for the task and sometimes it is not a DSLR. For Landscape use a larger format works much better and my Fuji 6x8 produces much higher image quality than the Canon 5DII. Obviously a Digital MF back will help but good ones (i.e. that beat a bigger scanned film so a H4D 60) are $40K. Clearly the Canon DSLR can take a lot more landscape shots than a big MF camera but landscape is all about the quality of an image not the volume.
    Similarly when I rock climb or mountaineer I usually take a rangefinder or M4/3 body. Canon DSLRs and lenses are very heavy and it is much easier to use a Contax G2 (or my Panasonic M4/3) while climbing. Just because the 7D suits your stele does not make it the answer for everyone and I felt that suggesting that a Leica is something to be stroked and put on a shelf - not used was rather condescending. The Leica produced fantastic images for Cartier-Bresson, Leibovitz, Capa, Nick Ut's Vietnam war image is perhaps one of the most famous ever taken - together with Korda's Che Guevara image. By the way if you think that Leicas are left on shelves look at Anthony Suau's 2008 winner of World Press Photo of the year - taken with a Leica M6 TTL.
     
  26. zml

    zml

    Pig in a poke​
    Well,like with most specialist lenses, if you need it you need it. after all how many non-specialist shooting require 400/2.8 or 180 macro...?
    A long time ago I did some aerial work with the old Nikon 8 mm f/8 (retrofocus design that required the mirror locked up - the f/2.8 8 mm came later) and for that particular assignment it was the only way that could do it. Period.
    I plan using it for underwater photography: the 15 mm is my standard lens UW and I hope that my housing manufacturer comes up with a dome that will allow using this lens close to 8 mmon a FF rig w/o dome vignetting.
     
  27. Be sure to test for flare control too. I use a Nikon 8/2.8 on my 1Ds and half the shots I take have the sun in the frame. With a 180 degree view it is pretty hard not getting the sun in the shot for landscapes. The Nikon has the best control over flare than any lens I have had including my new-to-me Canon 17 TS-E. The only time flare is a major concern for the Nikon circular is when the sun is very close to the edge.
    My biggest concern for the 8-15 is that it is too cheap! When the Nikon 8/2.8, Canon 14/2.8 and Canon 17 TS-E sell for above $2500 it is hard to believe that Canon can sell a truly phenomenal 8-15 for less than $3000.
    It is very easy to crop out the blue halo that all the circular fisheyes get around the edge, but I have noticed that the Nikon 8/2.8 has the least amount.
    00ZBLT-389243584.jpg
     
  28. P.S. I am an ultrawide angle fanatic and I have found that I am able to create effective compositions with the circular fisheye on a very regular basis. Every time I am shooting with the 17 TS-E I am shooting with the 8 as well. The 17 has taken the place of my 14/2.8 as my most used lens. I have gotten to the point where I have no lenses between 17mm and 80mm, (had to sell them to justify the 17) so I am going to sell the 14 to buy a lens or two to fill my "normal" gap.
     
  29. Another alternative would be adapting a Pentax-F 17-28/3.5-4.5 zoom. I believe at 17mm you get 180 degrees diagonally and it covers the frame, doesn't do the circular black borders at any length. Lens is discontinued but designed for film coverage. It's very light and costs a lot less--maybe ~$300. The 'long end' of these zooms is less fishy but still ultrawide, maybe roughly equivalent to a 20mm with a lot of barrel distortion. I'm sure it doesn't match the pricey L-zoom, for one thing it's minimum focus distance is maybe a bit longer than we'd like and it will probably have more CA.
     
  30. zml

    zml

    flare​
    Sun directly in the frame - not bad I'd say (8 mm @ f/8) I'll do some more tests with the sun closer to the edge.
    [​IMG]
    My biggest concern for the 8-15 is that it is too cheap! When the Nikon 8/2.8, Canon 14/2.8 and Canon 17 TS-E sell for above $2500 it is hard to believe that Canon can sell a truly phenomenal 8-15 for less than $3000.​
    Fish eyes are different animals...Well corrected UWA lenses are very expensive (EF 14/2.8 L) but a FA simply cannot be corrected for many aberrations by definition hence the lower price.
     
  31. Michael - that is quite impressive the Sigma 3.5 would flare more in this situation and lose contrast. This image is unedited - just reduced to 700 pixels.
    00ZBS0-389367784.jpg
     
  32. I picked one up on Thursday and had it in the studio on Friday for a magazine shoot. Oddly, for what I was doing the lens on the 5D was just too wide. It was great on the 7D. 'Still extremely wide (obviously) but more versatile. It's really a fun lens to use and I suspect it will get more use than the 14 f2.8L. Art directors are just crazy about fish-eye perspective (full frame, not round) for some reason. It always feels a bit gimmicky to me but what the heck. Ultimately, it's a great lens to borrow or rent even though it's at a very reasonable price. I had expected it to be one of those over US$2,000 lenses. Good luck with your photography!
     
  33. Cant wait to get one! I use the sigma 8mm, lensbaby fish 12mm, sigma 12-24mm and the canon 17-35mm, so hoping I can get this in the bag and free up some other space! By the way, I would class this as an everyday lens, I use a 'bit of fish' every day these days, from products, motorsports, weddings, portraits, animals, editorials to everything... I also use them on my 5dmk2, 7d, 1ds and 1d mk11, so all works, all bodies...video with fish is just to die for...get one and play!
     

Share This Page