15mm prime lenses for 1.6 fov DSLR eg 20D giving 24mm equiv

[gavinbell]

Hi all

 

Does a non fisheye 15mm prime lens exist for the EF mount. I dearly

love my EF24 f2.8 and want that focal length on my new 20D. I'm

planning on getting a 17-40L, but really want the 24 look.

 

The 10-22 is interesting, but overlaps with the 17 a lot and I'm less

keen on the sub 24 look.

 

All I can find are the Sigma and Canon fisheye lenses.Failing that are

any of the 15-xx zooms good, eg the Sigma 15-30 seems ok.

 

thanks

 

Gavin

[peter_white2]

No. But there is the 14mm EF lens. Rather expensive though.

[KenPapai]

The Sigma 15-30 is a fine lens with your 20D. It focuses a little slower than a Canon USM but it's still good glass. I sold it and replaced it with a 16-35L. Otherwise your options are horribly expensive.

[mike_smith2]

This is why some people have been experimenting with Leica, Olympus and Zeiss rectilinear manual focus 15mm wide angle lenses

 

Check out the Canon lens mount forum on the Fredmiranda website for a lot of discussion on using these exotic lenses, or the Rob Galbraith website "SLR lens testing" forum.

 

Mike Smith

 

UK

[gavinbell]

thanks all

 

I didn't think there was one, the 14's are astonishingly expensive!

 

I guess I'll have a look at the sigma 15-30, which seems to be end of lining in the UK, cameraworld have/had them for 299ukp, not this month though.

 

Looks like I'll be taking my EOS30 and my 24 for wide, shooting Provia and my 20D for the rest in France.

 

cheers

Gavin

[digitmstr]

Good glass is expensive, no way around it. The Canon EF 16-35 f/2.6L is an excellent super-wide zoom and it will fit ANY EOS bodies, to date. Therefore, it's a good investment. The 14mm is also a great lens, if you don't need the zoom. Both of them are pricey but, great performers. I have used them several times though, for my work I use my 24-70L much more often.

[cliff_shone1]

"The 10-22 is interesting, but overlaps with the 17 a lot and I'm less keen on the sub 24 look".

 

That still leaves you with 24-35mm equiv (on the 10-22mm) that you know you like and who knows, sub-24mm might grow on you. The Canon 10-22mm is an excellent lens, I urge you try one before dismissing it competelely.

[digitmstr]

>>The Canon 10-22mm is an excellent lens<<

 

Indeed - unfortunately it will work only on EF-S bodies. Worth noting considering the cost of the lens.

[peter_white2]

Giampi,

 

True, the 10-22 will not fit other bodies. But if you're concerned about people eventually upgrading to the inevitable full frame body in the 20D's price range, I think you should reconsider. Nobody makes a 10-22 zoom that will cover full frame. There are a few lenses with a similar range of focal lengths but while they may attach to a full frame body, they won't cover the full frame. And any 10mm lens that could cover full frame would be severely compromised optically with several stops of light fall-off in the corners. The 12mm VC lens vignettes badly. Imagine how bad a zoom would be that covered full frame!

[gavinbell]

Hi all

 

Cliff, you are maybe right that sub 24 might grow on me, but I borrowed a friends 16-35

and found myself at 24 a lot, hence buying the prime.

 

Giampi, yes L glass is lovely and addictive, hence my interest in the 17-40L, what I'd really

like Canon to release is an EF15-40, but I think that is a dream. EFS lenses are less

appealing as in time 1.6 will disappear. It might be 5 years away, but my 50 and 24 were

both bought second hand and I'm sure the 50 is more than 10 years old and still works a

treat.

 

Good glass is worth more than a fancy body, some day my 20D will be history, just like my

30 is in second place now, my EF glass collection will still be around

 

thanks

 

Gavin

[phule]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/tamron%2011-18mm.shtml

 

This might be a better option. The overlap is only 2mm and the cost of the lens is less than the 10-22

[jcolwell]

The SMC Pentax 15/3.5 (K mount) and SMC Takumar 15/3.5 (M42 mount) are both excellent rectilinear ultra wides (on FF bodies). Adapters are available for both M42 and K to EOS, but you have to perform a leverectomy operation on the K versions to remove the aperture control lever, which may reduce resale value.

[joe_r1]

Have a look at the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens - compared to the other options in superwide zooms, it has a great balance of features, build, quality, and price.

[digitmstr]

>>Nobody makes a 10-22 zoom that will cover full frame<<

 

I didn't say nor implied such notion.

 

The 16-35L, though MORE expensive, it's an L lens (more durable and with weather o-rings, etc...) which will fit ALL EOS bodies. IMO, that makes it a godd investments as you can use it with film, digital, etc...

 

The 10-22 only fits EF-S bodies which limits its usage. Considering the cost of the lens it's something to keep in mind.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> There is also the Sigma 12-24 which also covers FF but most users are not very happy with it's optical quality. If I were in your shoes I'd probably go for the 10-22 and another prime in the 24-50mm range. anyway, primes at these ranges are either extremely expensive or fish-eye or simply non-existent :-(</p>

 

<p> I'd also consider getting the 15/2.8 <a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/imagealign.shtml">straightening it</a>. <b></b> </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[peter_white2]

Yakim,

 

How would you frame your image with the 15 fisheye if you were planning on straightening it later? It would seem to me to be nearly impossible to know what your final framing would look like after being photoshopped.