15mm fisheye or 10-22mm wideangle

[corey_oringderff]

<p>I have a 40d and I cant decide between the 15mm or the 10-22mm. I shoot alot of landscapes and alot of extreme sports like aggressive skating. I dont know how the 15mm would look on a crop factor or how wide the angle of view would be, so im kind of stuck.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>10-22 , the 15mm wont be very fishy on a crop camera</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>Hello Corey:</p>

<p>I have a 40D and also thought about the 15mm fisheye. I bought the EF10-22 and do not regret it. 10mm is plenty wide on the 40D for me and it is a very good optic. I haven't done any testing, but, the 10-22 seems to be about as good as my EF17-40L (which is my super-wide angle zoom on my film cameras).</p>

<p>I never did try the fisheye.</p>

<p>If you are in the USA, you can rent the EF10-22 and a sigma 15mm fisheye (I don't think they have the Canon 15mm) from these folks:</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon</p>

<p>I've rented from them in the past and they are very good people to deal with.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[jeffreyfortuna]

<p>Both lenses are great but for a crop sensor the 15 isn't very wide. I had a 10-22 a few years ago but sold it to fund a telephoto. The 10-22 isn't technically a fisheye but gives a very similar effect if you put your subjects close to the camera. I've wanted another one ever since I sold mine, also I noticed I shot most everything at 10mm or very close to is. The canon 10-22 is very well made and holds it value as well as any other lens out there. <br>

Jeffrey</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, the 10-20mm. In any case, the fisheye is for a rather different purpose (originally for sky photographs for weathermen (<em>not</em> meaning Ayers)). In your sports photography there might be an argument for a fisheye if you can get in close, but probably not the 15mm which is likely, as pointed out, to be cropped too much on the 15x22mm sensor. Look at the <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tokina_PIE2006.html">Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom</a> , for an alternative. Note that the fisheye perspective can get to be a little much in a very short time, however.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Corey, when deciding between the two, remember that it's not just a difference in field of view or overall "look." It's a difference in geometry. I have both an ultrawide rectilinear (my Sigma 12-24, which I use on my 5D and which yields a 90 deg field of view across the minor dimension of the frame and 122 deg diagonally) and an MC Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye (which has a 180 deg field of view diagonally on a full frame camera).<br>

The two geometries have very different purposes. It is important to use a rectilinear lens whenever straight lines must be kept straight, for instance when doing tight interior shots in a building. Used for landscapes, the margins of the frame get really stretched and "swoopy." That's a look of its own, I suppose, but it's a rather extreme effect that gets old pretty fast.<br>

A diagonal fisheye is best used when shapes need to be preserved, for instance when you don't want someone in the corner of the frame to have a "cone head." It doesn't give you a "swoop" like a rectilinear, but it will give flat surfaces a curved look. Horizons will be straight if they run through the middle of the frame, but otherwise they will be bowed.<br>

A 15 or 16mm diagonal fisheye on a crop body will simply give you a less extreme representation of the above. You can see full frame sample images of the Zenitar on this page...<br>

<a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/zenitar16.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/zenitar16.htm</a><br>

You can link from that page to other sites (Ken Rockwell, Bob Atkins), where I recall samples exist of this Fisheye on a crop body. As I recall, both pages have a few sample shots that show how shapes are represented. Someday I'll put up a page to compare rectilinear with fisheye geometries. I think we all got so overdosed on fisheyes in the 70's that we forgot the good things the geometry can do for us.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Canon 15/2.8 is not ideal for landscape, but it's not as bad as you might think.  On APSC the most distorted parts get cropped off.   The distortion is not really all that noticeable for some scenes (mountains) while seascapes need to be de-fished unless your horizon is smack-dab in the center.  Obviously you can't use filters (polarizer, grad) and the bulbous front element is somewhat exposed.  It's a pretty nice lens for action actually. I friend of mine shoots his with a 20D. The f/2.8 speed comes in handy.  Sharp lens bith a bit of red/green fringing which is easily fixed.</p><P>

<p>The 10-22 is the lens for landscape.  10 mm rectilinear gives awesome perspective, and you can work with lines, exaggarate foreground objects and such.  I have Sigma 10-20 and love it.</p><P>

<p>Rectilinear exaggarates stuff in the corners while fish-eye emphasizes the center (nice for action).  In PS you can de-fish the 15/2.8 or you could spherize UWA shots but this is hardly ideal.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>I have a 16mm fisheye and sometimes use it on my 40D...I've also used the 10-20 by Sigma. You will still see some distortion in the fore-ground, but not as noticeable if you are shooting a wide landscape with few foreground elements.</p><div></div>

[nathan_meador]

<p>The angle of view is wider on the 10-22. Here is an example shooting vertical...</p><div></div>

[nathan_meador]

<p>should have clarified, the digger was using the fisheye (Zenitar)...here is a wide shot where the fisheye isn't very obvious...</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>sorry, one more try...</p><div></div>

[nathan_meador]

<p>last post, this one with the sigma 10-20mm at 10mm...biggest difference is that the fisheye would have given some distortion along all building lines. Sometimes desireable...but probably not ALL the time.</p><div></div>

[terry_henry]

<p>Hi<br>

I bought the Sigma 15mm Fisheye for my 35mm 50E and carried on using it for a long time on my 300D. However, once I bought the 10-22mm the 15mm never got used - so I sold it. The 1.6 crop removes most of the point of the fish.<br>

Cheers</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I have both. The fisheye really comes into its own on FF, but is not so exciting on a crop camera. I would go for the 10-22 everytime on a 40D.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I'd go for 10-22, fish eye is a specialize lens, you wouldn't want to use it for every landscape shot.</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>The Canon 10-22 is really tops in it's category. It will out perform the generic wide angle zooms. I've never been disappointed with mine which I purchased used at a big discount- though was like new. Look around good used ones are out there.</p>

 

[brian_seay]

<p>Had both when I used a crop sensor. It's 10-22, hands down. Much more useful than the fish for most situations. Sold it to a friend for 80% of what I paid for it when I got a 5D.</p>