Canon 15mm Vs. Sigma 15mm?

[mike burley]

I'm about to buya 15mm for my canon 1d (crop factor 1.3). I want a

180 deg. view, so the 15mm seems good. I have all canon lens but

heard that Sigma is making nice lenses now. Has anyone done any

comparisons with the different aperatures to see the soft corners? Is

the Sigma a tough lens for a PJ? I dont mind spending the extra 150

for the canon, but thought I'd give Sigma a second chance. Thanks

 

Mike Burley

[denisbergeron]

All your question will be answer <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/sigma_14mm.shtml">here</a>

<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/sigma_14mm.shtml

[philippe]

Denis: Mike asks about the fisheye lenses, not the "rectilinear" 14mm.

[joe_mccabe]

Howdy, I own a Sigma fish that I use on my 10D. Prior to purchasing the fish I researched the heck out of the Sigma vs Canon online and found no difference in image quality. CA, sharpness, contrast, etc - all seemed identical (altho admittedly it's hard to tell online). The Sigma does have a more yellow lens coating however (which to my mind is more of a positive than a negative when it comes to landscapes and skies). I haven't had the opportunity to use a Canon fish but the Sigma is built like a tank, it's shrap and it's contrasty (at least on a 10D with the 1.6 crop factor).

 

Cheers!

Joe

[david_kieltyka]

Mike, you won't get 180° from either lens on a 1D due to the smaller sensor. But the field-of-view will still be plenty wide. I've never used the Sigma but have used a borrowed Canon. It's a well-made lens and should handle more than a bit of abuse.

 

-Dave-

[bobatkins]

Note that a 15mm fisheye won't give you a 180 degree view, even on a full frame camera - unless you mean diagonal coverage.

 

A 16mm fisheye on a 10D give you about an 84 degree horizontal field of view for example.

 

I'm not sure what you'd get with a 15mm fisheye on a 1D for a horizontal field of view. I'd guess maybe something in the 100 degree region. Remember that with a fisheye the angular coverage isn't linear across the frame and that makes the calculation a bit tricky.

[yakim_peled1]

<P> <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Primes/Canon,EF,15mm,f-2.8,Fish-Eye/PRD_83407_3111crx.aspx">Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 reviews</a>. </P>

 

<P> <a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Primes/Sigma,15mm,f-2.8,Fish-Eye/PRD_84586_3111crx.aspx">Sigma 15mm f/2.8 reviews</a>. </P>

 

<P>If you want to use it as a regular lens, you may want to use <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/imagealign.shtml">this software</a>. </P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

[ralfbernert.com - photogra]

Mike, the image-quality of the Sigma is slightly better. The Canon clearly beats the Sigma in auto focus speed even though it is not a USM lens. But using a fish eye lens auto focus is not really the subject. I own and use professionally the Sigma.