« on: September 22, 2014, 11:48:55 AM »
I know this sounds a little weird, but using my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 fisheye has almost totally eliminated my desire for an ultrawide. I rarely use my 17-40L anymore, and I think this lens is in the same category. The fish is great optically, and defishing is so easy in Lightroom now that I can do it with no effort when I want a rectilinear image. Yeah, I lose a lot of pixels when cropping to 15mm or 24mm equivalent (half and three-quarters, respectively) but I rarely find that to be a problem, and I can usually overlap with my standard zoom (starting at 24mm) when I really do need the pixels.
I'm currently considering selling all my lenses but two, and those two are the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the Sigma 15mm fisheye. I'd be replacing that middle range with either the Tamron 24-70/2.8VC or the rumored Sigma 24-70/2 OS.
I'm the same but only with the SY 14mm. Coupled to a standard zoom it's a very light and capable combo. I hardly ever use the 17-40L now and for my last vacation I didn't even bother taking it. You're right about the cropping, taking it down to about 17mm from 14mm isn't a problem at all. Between 17mm and 24mm I don't find much going on. Either I want ultra wide, or wide.
I did find IS quite useful on the EF-M 11-22 lens and I'm very curious about this new Tamron vs the 16-35 IS. What I found about the IS was that I kept wanting a third point of contact (my eye socket) to stabilize it further. But even without it was possible to get an acceptably sharp shot at 1s.