Opinions on the 15 mm fisheye lens

[Tom W]

Anybody have it? How do you like it. Its interesting, but I don't know if its interesting enough to actually own one.

[Adam Hicks]

I've used one before, can't remember if it was the Canon or the Sigma, but it's one of those things you take some shots with and say 'cool!' and then you take a silly picture of your dog. And your wife. And then you become bored with it and question it's usefulness, and thank yourself for not buying it.

At least that was MY experience!

Adam

[velvetjones]

I have the Sigma version....it is alright. It is obviously a lot cooler with a full frame camera. I don't know that I can justify what I paid for it yet...but I have it and I like it. The Canon is nearly double the cost, so I can't really see any reason to buy it over the Sigma, as the reviews seem to be similar between the two.

[Andy_T]

Look here...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47621

Best regards,
Andy

[Tom W]

Thanks for the input and the link. I hadn't seen that discussion already under way. The software correction path looks useful, since fisheye photography isn't something I'd use every day. It may not be something I use ever. :shock:

[Kenski]

Tom,

I thought I would never use it eaither but I use it more often then I would think. Sometimes I like the attitude that the fisheye gives off in my pictures.

I like the distortion in this picture here because it gives it some flavor....


http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36215629.jpg

and then depending on what your shooting, sometimes you don't really need to correct if you don't want to.. I didn't really need to correct this image if I didn't want to but I did anyways... Here is the before shot... yeah, you can still see some distortion in it but, you need some flavor unless you want to be a straight arrow your whole life...

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36215727.jpg

and here is the corrected

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36215772.jpg

[Kenski]

BTW, the build of the lens is VERY HIGHLY RANKED in my book. I haven't messed around with filters for it yet as you might beable to tell because you need to use gelatin drop in and that is totally new to me and I don't quite understand the whole concept yet but still learning it. The lens cap doesn't quite stay on all the time and I think I'm going to glue a piece of thin felt to the inside lip of my lens cap so it grips the permanent lens hood better and doesn't fall off as easy. The front element of course is VERY round so you have to be careful not to touch it but it is no big deal.

I did alot of research on this lens before I bought it because there wasn't too many people on this site that had it, honestly, I think I can probably count the # of people on two hands who have this lens, well, who actually talk about it. I was pretty afraid because I didn't want HUGE distortion and then when I found the software to correct it I knew I had a winner because I could have a SUPER-WIDE lens and a FISHEYE all-in-one.... If you read some other boards, alot of people get hooked on fisheyes and take ALOT of pictures with there fisheyes and then just correct them if they don't like the look of the fisheye...


As to Adams comment, you do with it what you want there have been some people who said they haven't used a XXX because they bought a XXX lens and people flipped out because they want the XXX lens... I have found MANY uses for it, I went to the Wright Patterson Airforce Museum and shot almost the entire museum with my 15mm... It comes in handy...

[Kenski]

Here are a couple pics that aren't correct with PTLens that were shot with the 15mm at Wright Patterson Airforce base...

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36217362.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36217484.jpg

[Tom W]

Nice shots, Kenski.

BTW, when straightened with software, how does the field of view compare with other lenses. I can go as wide as 16 mm already with normal rectilinear lenses. Would a corrected 15mm fisheye be significantly wider?

[Kenski]

To be honest, I don't know. I have never compared. I have my 15mm fisheye, then my 18-55 EFS and then my 50 1.4... I guess I could try a comparison shot with a 18mm shot and then a 15mm and a 15mm correct shot to see what the seperation is but won't do much good.

[Kenski]

Hmmm, does this HELP at all???

All taken @ f4 on a tripod...

18mm

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36218638.jpg

18mm CORRECTED

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36218687.jpg

15mm

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36218639.jpg

15mm CORRECTED

http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36218640.jpg


It takes out quite a bit but it doesn't help much... I guess I would have to put it next to a 16mm to see the difference... It is wider then 18mm though...

[Tom W]

Thanks for doing that test, Kenski. That's significantly wider.

While you were doing that, I came across some information that indicated that the 15 mm fisheye, after correction, would give the same field of view as something like a 12.5 mm lens on full frame.

More correctly (what they really said), the article at Photo.net said that the corrected 15 mm fisheye mounted on a 1.6X sensor gave a field-of-view equivalent of a 20mm lens on full frame. Normally, a 15 mm lens would give the field of view of a 24 mm lens when used on the 1.6X sensor. And, it would take a 12.5 mm rectilinear lens on a 1.6X sensor to produce the equivalent field of view of a 20 mm full-frame shot. So, what you get with the corrected 15 mm fisheye is what you might expect from a 12.5 mm "normal" wide-angle lens.

Being able to shoot wide rectilinear shots would be a plus for the lens, even though that isn't its intended purpose.

I'm getting close to talking myself into it. :)

[Kenski]

Thanks for doing that test, Kenski. That's significantly wider.

While you were doing that, I came across some information that indicated that the 15 mm fisheye, after correction, would give the same field of view as something like a 12.5 mm lens on full frame.

More correctly (what they really said), the article at Photo.net said that the corrected 15 mm fisheye mounted on a 1.6X sensor gave a field-of-view equivalent of a 20mm lens on full frame. Normally, a 15 mm lens would give the field of view of a 24 mm lens when used on the 1.6X sensor. And, it would take a 12.5 mm rectilinear lens on a 1.6X sensor to produce the equivalent field of view of a 20 mm full-frame shot. So, what you get with the corrected 15 mm fisheye is what you might expect from a 12.5 mm "normal" wide-angle lens.

Being able to shoot wide rectilinear shots would be a plus for the lens, even though that isn't its intended purpose.

I'm getting close to talking myself into it. :)

heheeh.... It is an addicting lens and it shoots pretty damn sharp for me. the landing gear door isn't that sharp because it was a 1/2 sec exposure and I shot it on a monopod. I didn't think about bringing a tripod with me that day and I always have the monopod attached to the backpack.... Didn't think about not being able to use the flashes the easily with the HIGH celings. I did get a few really good shots though, here is another example of the 15mm @ the air force base, ehhh, on the monopod with a 1/4 sec exposure....

uncorrected
http://www.pbase.com/kenski/image/36220948.jpg

[spearce6]

Tom,

I hired this lens for the weekend - you can see my views and photos here:

http://steve-pearce-photography.com/fisheyeweekend

and more gallery pics with the lens here:

http://steve-pearce-photography.com/Fisheyegallery

I like the lens a lot, but would have trouble justifying the cost to buy it.

I would suggest hiring for a weekend as well, get the novelty part of the lens out of your system and then decide.

Cheers

Steve