Opinions on the EF 15mm 2.8 Fisheye?

I rarely see this lens discussed and I know it's a "specialty" lens, but I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on it? I can't justify spending the coin for the 8-15mm fisheye. Also, how do you use a polarizer with the 15mm fisheye?

With the field of view of the fish eye I don't know how you would use it. You wouldnt get a good even coverage.

I have one and it's a fantastic lens. Mine doesn't see a whole lot of use but when I do find a use for it, it provides very unique shots that would be very difficult (or impossible) to get otherwise. As far as a CPL, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to use one with this lens considering the huge angle of view (if you could even find one that would work, which I doubt you could).

Kind of an artistic lens with a unique perspective. I've always like the look of fisheye photos

jra wrote in post #14707582
I have one and it's a fantastic lens. Mine doesn't see a whole lot of use but when I do find a use for it, it provides very unique shots that would be very difficult (or impossible) to get otherwise. As far as a CPL, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to use one with this lens considering the huge angle of view (if you could even find one that would work, which I doubt you could).

About all I have that might work is a Lee 4x4 polarizer that I could hand hold? It says it can use gel filters?

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #14707640
About all I have that might work is a Lee 4x4 polarizer that I could hand hold?

Not going work with this lens with its 180º field of view.

I have the 17-40 and 15mm on a 5D. They both have their place in my kit. With the 15mm, you also have the option of fully or partially de-fishing images while still getting a much larger FOV than your 17mm can do. Lightroom 4 has nice tool for this.

mike_d wrote in post #14707875
I have the 17-40 and 15mm on a 5D. They both have their place in my kit. With the 15mm, you also have the option of fully or partially de-fishing images while still getting a much larger FOV than your 17mm can do. Lightroom 4 has nice tool for this.

So is there a switch on the lens or are you talking about correcting it in post processing?

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #14707903
So is there a switch on the lens or are you talking about correcting it in post processing?

Its post processing.

mike_d wrote in post #14707969
Its post processing.

That's good to know.......I was photographing a sunset last night and I was wishing my 17-40 was a touch wider to tell you the truth

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #14706904
I rarely see this lens discussed and I know it's a "specialty" lens, but I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are on it? I can't justify spending the coin for the 8-15mm fisheye. Also, how do you use a polarizer with the 15mm fisheye?

It is so niche that you can't do majority of your shot making with it after getting through the learning curve. Some of my friends bought it and find that other lens is more value for money since they use it more often.

I will take the 15FE over the 8-15 because of 2.8 as we use it primarily for weddings. During travels, I do sometimes bring it along, which I feel the 2.8 aperture is not really warranted. So for most people 8-15 is really more versatile.

I just found out that LightRoom 4 can de-fish images thanks to another member. Here's some tests I just did that I thought might interest you since you also have a 17-40.

I took two shots (de-fished shots from the 15mm are virtual copies), both hand-held, sitting in a chair, focused on the red bottle cap in front of the black keyboard. Exposure settings, including flash power (bounced off ceiling) are identical between both shots. I just chimped it to make the walls white. The camera is a 5D.

17-40 @ 17mm:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Ok. so having had this lens, and many other ultrawides, here are my thoughts.
the lens is small and light, and is very sharp. has some Ca, but easy to correct. its a fun lens to use in tight quarters, if you dont mind some distortion, and it makes a cool video lens. I would personally not use the lens in a situation where I need to defish. the penalty on loss of resolution is too much.
For landscape, you want to keep the horizon in the middle if you can, and keep vertical objects away from the edges. I used to shoot more with it now, not as much recently.
here are a few on full frame

^ Fantastic pictures.
I, too, am looking at this lens. How is the FoV on 1.6 crop?

its not as fishy on a crop. dont know what the angle of view comes down to.