This is a highly specialized lens. Unfortunately, these images and video from this sort of lens gets tired and old extremely fast. A circular fisheye is of very limited use, and this lens is quite expensive for a fisheye. i would consider this lens if i already owned all the lenses that I truly covet, and i had a spare $1500. As fisheyes go a 15mm on FF is the most useful, and f2.8 is more useful than f4.
i watched the posted "review," and I liked the film of the guy using the 8-15, which was actually a 24-105 on a 5DII. There were very few clips from the 8-15 lens in that video. Canon release an excellent video produced with this lens almost a year ago, but still, a 12-24 would be nearly infinitely more useful than this. Although the 8-15 is perhaps a feat of engineering, the Canon, or Sigma, 15 2.8 prime is a better deal.
i may get flamed for this contrarian opinion, but I think you guys could spend your money better elsewhere.
Not trying to flame you, just write my opinions & questions.
Sigma has 4 fisheye lenses (circular & diagonal, FF & APS-C), and Nikon made 6 of them (excluding the 6mm 220deg circular fisheye, which is very specialized). Canon only ever made one fisheye (at least for the EF mount). Is circular fisheye that specialized, or is Canon just a bit behind other lens manufacturors ?
As for price, allow me to play the devil's advocate.
1) The EF 15mm f/2.8 for $799 and the EF 8-15mm f/4 for $1499. One way to look at the price is that, for FF body owners, the EF 8-15mm is two lenses in one, which could justify paying about twice the price. I'll give you that there are trade-offs, e.g. an aperture stop vs. weight and bag space.
I'll admit this is not as attractive for APS-C camera owners, which might want to buy a Sigma fisheye, unless they happen to have concrete plans to upgrade to FF.
2) The EF 15mm f/2.8 was made in the days of film, the EF 8-15mm f/4 was made in the days of digital sensors, so it should be easy to raise the ISO one stop to compensate for the lost aperture stop. I doubt the difference in DOF would be an issue for many photographers.