Widest lens on 20D?

Would the 10-22 ef-s or 15 fisheye have a wider view on a 20D?

 

Thanks,

 

James

The 10-22 will be wider, at the wide end.

What Peter said ... also see ...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KXmV

The 10-22 is wonderful on the 20D -- the fisheye is best used on full frame cameras...

Widest lens on 20D...rectilinear or fisheye? If you want a fisheye, you could rent one of the insanely short Nikon circular fisheyes and adapt it to the camera.

 

Otherwise, you can get the 35mm equivalent angle of view of a 16mm lens by using the 10-22 zoom.

 

Keith

The widest lens is the 8mm circular fisheye from Peleng (see http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/wide-angle-lenses-2.html).

 

The 10mm end of the 10-22 is wider than a 15/16mm full frame fisheye.

 

Formulae for calculating field of view of both rectilinear and fisheye lenses are given here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html

Here is a current Nikon fisheye picture taken on a 20D. It works. However, I bought a Spiratone (aka Kenko, Samigon) screw on 0.16X adapter and it works OK, not spectacularly. I also have had two Spiratone T-mount 7mm fisheye (Sorry, Bob, that is shorter than the Peleng, but you're right, so far as I know for current lenses), but neither has been sharp on the Canon with a EOS T-mount adapter<div></div>

Here is a shot taken just now in my backyard with a Samigon (aka Spiratone, Kenko) 0.16X adapter mounted on front of the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 lens. Theoretically, this should be the equivalent of a 5.6mm lens. It's good enough for playing around, but perhaps not for really serious use.<div></div>

I wouldn't take that 0.16x too literally. Assuming a 24mm image circle, a 5.6mm fisheye would have a field of view of around 245 degrees, i.e. it would see behind the camera. While technically possible, it would need a huge front element the size of a dinner plate that bulged way out from the front of the lens!<div></div>

You'll notice, I did say "theoretically" and it's very clear that my feet aren't in the picture.;)

 

Here's what the Samigon looks like.<div></div>

Pictures of the same scene (taken with the Peleng 8mm and the EFS 10-22 at 10mm) can be found at the end of thread ...

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LUst

 

My personal experience with placing a 0.39x adapter on a the kitlens (and use it at 18mm thereby resulting in 7mm too) is that the Peleng is

a tad wider ... the 0.39x + 18mm kit seems not to cover the imagecircle that a 7mm lens should cover 'theoretically'. Also, imagequality at the border was very poor (Not that the Peleng is great at the border).

Thanks so much for the information! I apologize for not being more specific in my question. I have the 15mm fisheye and used it recently to take a self portrait while cycling. I wanted a little wider view, so I thought I would ask to see if the 10-22 would give me a wider view. It sounds like from the responses it would. However, now I?m thinking I would be better off picking up a film rebel (probably used around a 100.00) and just mount my fisheye to that.

 

Thanks again,

 

James<div></div>

You can get some of the earlier film EOS cameras incredibly cheaply. The first EOS (film) cameras were the 650 and the 620--I've bought three of them for film backup and they all work. Less than $30 apiece.

 

Also got a lovely fully functional EOS 5 camera (the one with the eye controlled focus) for not much more.

 

Film is dead. Long live film!

Maybe I should follow in the footsteps of the Lomography movement, and start a "Spirography" movement dedicated to taking atmospheric and ill-defined images with old Spiratone fisheyes?

 

Remember, you saw it here first!<div></div>