RIP Canon EF 15 f/2.8 Fisheye

[J. McCabe]

I guess it all depends on the definition of a 'fast' lens, and f/2.8 isn't really all that fast (although it's pretty reasonable for a fisheye). My comment would be regarding low light, is that there is a 24mm f/1.4 which is certainly a fast lens, or if the f/4 fisheye zoom is too slow, there's still the 14mm f/2.8 with a slightly reduced field of view, but still rectilinear.

I'm sure the 14mm f/2.8 is a good lens, but as an enthusiast (even one who stretched himself to buy a 5Dmk2) I can't drop four figures in dollars on every lens I buy.

Some shows I go to are in a small room with standing crowd, so I have to be right in front of the stage to shoot anything, and with a fisheye I can the whole stage in one shot (esp when there's a big band, say 15 people), and then defish it. The light is such I sometimes shoot @ f/2.8 & ISO 3200.

With more distance, I can often use narrower lenses, e.g. 35mm f/2

 

[Carlosbcn]

As others said before me, I must strongly disagree with the Canon 8-15 f/4 buyers not being happy... Where did CR draw that info from? Of course I don't know everybody who has bought it, but every review I've read about this lens -and I've read a lot- was raving about the sharpness and quality of this lens (just a couple of reviewers were not specially enthusiastic).

But, even after reading such good reviews, I still thought the price was WAY too high for such a specialist lens, and the Canon 15mm f/2.8 was not available anymore at the stores I buy my lenses from, so I purchased the Sigma 15mm f/2.8... I won't go into details, just let me say I was very deceived and ended up returning it and paying more for a Canon 8-15mm... and wow, I'm loving it since the very first shot, absolutely amazing lens. I should have gone for it in the first place.

I don't care that much for the one stop difference, but I agree (1) it is very, very expensive, (2) the lens cap is a nightmare (how come they are able to design such an excellent 8-15 fisheye, and they can't design a bloody lens plastic cap that stays on???) and (3) the protruding front element is so exposed without the lenshood, that it is asking to be scratched.

 

[NaturaLight]

I have the Sigma 15mm f2.8 - only non-Canon lens I own. Love it.

 

[Jettatore]

Canon Rumors Admin,

Can you elaborate on the critiques you've been hearing rumblings of on the 8-15 f/4L fisheye? I'm curious. Thanks man.

 

[infared]

Glad that I bought the Canon Fisheye last year. For my use it is a "no-brainer", compared to the new fisheye zoom at $1500+ (well at least you don't/can't have the added expense of the B&W filter for this lens!!!).
The 15mm f/2.8 is a GREAT lens, cost-effective and SMALL!!!!!! Since I own all L glass(except for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4) ....I even like the way the fisheye's little non-USM motor whirs. Its pretty cool and archaic..I like that. Oh...and the lens cap stays on pretty well too. I find it to be sharp and a great asset in my kit, with size and cost appropriate for use.
I am not really a fan of zooms or hunking around a giant chunk of glass (a stop slower) that I occasionally use. One that is apparently extremely prone to injury.
What I do not understand is why would Canon stop making the original fisheye lens. The new zoom is a specialty lens, certainly not a replacement to this tried-and-true performer??????????? Another plus is..the value of MY fisheye just went up to more than I paid for it. Cool!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thats sad. I bought mine used for $250 two years ago. The owner had lost the cap and the hood had a slight bend. No damage to the glass. I have a filter thread straightner which not only straightened out the hood, but I expanded it until my new lens cap fit snugly and does not fall off. The lens is now better than new.

 

[TexPhoto]

What a lot of people don't realize is that you can use it on a full frame down to just below 14mm. The difference between 15mm and 14mm is quite large, and I'm really glad I've got that extra mm over the original one.

Yes, at 14mm, (maybe even 13.75), there is no vignetting.

Admittedly, a huge disadvantage of the 8-15mm lens is the cost. But the 15mm prime will be around available used for the next 20+ years or so, and the Sigma is probably here to stay as well.

 

[Jettatore]

I'm not saying this won't change in the next few days/hours, but this lens is still listed on Canon's US consumer website, both in the pro and consumer sections that mostly carry identical products but are simply organized slightly differently.

 

[Pag]

For those looking for a fish eye to play around with, the Samyang 8mm f/3.5 is a great deal for the money. For about $300, you get a surprisingly sharp fish-eye lens for crop sensor bodies. It's fully manual, but that's not much of an issue since it's really easy to focus a fish-eye lens.

A few pictures I took with this lens: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pagarneau/sets/72157628100577905/

 

[Jettatore]

Pag, those are really nice shots.

 

[epsiloneri]

Yes, at 14mm, (maybe even 13.75), there is no vignetting.

Since the EF 15/2.8 FE is supposed to be 180 degrees on the diagonal on FF, does that mean that the EF 8-15/4.0L FE @ 14mm displays more that 180 degrees on the diagonal on FF? Or is the image distortion somehow different on the EF 8-15/4.0L FE such that the full 180 degrees are only displayed at <14mm? Does anyone know?

 

[Loswr]

Yes, at 14mm, (maybe even 13.75), there is no vignetting.

Since the EF 15/2.8 FE is supposed to be 180 degrees on the diagonal on FF, does that mean that the EF 8-15/4.0L FE @ 14mm displays more that 180 degrees on the diagonal on FF? Or is the image distortion somehow different on the EF 8-15/4.0L FE such that the full 180 degrees are only displayed at <14mm? Does anyone know?

The diagonal angle of view for the 8-15mm ranges from 175°30' at 15mm to 180° at 14mm, and then remains at 180° from 14mm down to 8mm. The diagonal measure is the longest dimension in the image, while the vertical AoV is the smallest dimension (~92° at 14mm); all other lines you could draw through the frame are intermediate between 180° and 92°. As you zoom out to 8mm, all the other angles increase, until at 8mm, the vertical AoV achieves 180° (and thus all those intermediate lines are also 180°), and you have a circular image.

Hope that makes sense.

For a visual demonstration, check out the focal length comparisons in the TDP review - look at the extreme corners at 14mm as you mouseover to shorter lengths - the effect is probably easiest to see with the bottom row (hubcap), looking at the trees reflected in the extreme upper left corner.

EDIT: Missed the bit about comparing 15mm on the original fisheye with 15mm on the fisheye zoom, but you can see that in the first-line mouseovers - they are pretty close at 15mm, and the zoom at 14mm has a slightly wider AoV, which implies that the either the fisheye zoom is seeing sightly wider than 180°, or more likely, the original prime is seeing slightly less. But also, IIRC the AoV is specified at infinity focus, and the zoom has a closer MFD, which may mean that the actual diagonal AoV when the lens is focused at distances less than infinity decreases more for the prime than for the zoom.

 

[keith_cooper]

Hardly surprising that Canon are retiring the old 15mm - USM motor and all

I've compared it to the new 8-15 and the zoom wins hands down - in fact this thread has reminded me that it's time for my 15mm to go on eBay, once I find the box etc ;-)

I just updated my review of the lens with a portrait of Michael Westmoreland at the preview for his 80th birthday exhibition.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/canon_ef8-15f4l.html

if you don't know Michael's work - he's one of the key figures in the development of panoramic photography.

Given his work behind him, I just thought the 8-15 as the lens to use