Prioritize between 15mm fisheye and 85mm?

I'm thinking of adding a 15mm fisheye or a 85mm lens to my equipment. They obviously are different lenses of use. The 85mm sits well between my 50mm and 100mm macro/135mm. I went for a walk in a ancient animal fossil exhibition and found my 100mm macro a bit too long to handle (but it's great for skull shots). A 70-200mm zoom seems to be an overkill, and I can step back (quite a lot of distance) to substitute for zooming. A 85mm f/1.8 makes indoor shooting great. However, for shooting in exhibitions, festivals, fun events, etc, a 15mm diagonal fisheye makes much fun. I don't consider a circular fisheye because it's too drastic. But is a fisheye less useful for practical use than a 85mm? How should I prioritize the choices?

If I go for a fisheye, is Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye a good alternative of Canon?

Only YOU can decide for yourself! Which you you get greater use of, overall?

The input from others is merely opinions. Seems to me a fisheye is quite specialized, vs. 85 f/1.8 being quite versatile. OTOH if I were mostly artistic in my approach to photography, the fisheye seems a more creatively useful tool.

Gene,

unless you are into special shooting styles (e.g. skateboarding or other 'youth' activities ), you might find that the novelty factor of a fisheye lens wears off in time. I know that I would maybe not find it interesting any more after some time (but I was considering the Canon 15 FE for some time as wide prime for landscapes.)

If you really want to have the 'fishy' effect, you might consider the Peleng 8 MM (manual focus) lens.

Best regards,
Andy

The Peleng wouldn't work for them, I don't think, Andy. He said he was avoiding the circulars because the effect was too strong. don't think an 8mm would be any different.

Are you needing the FOV of a wider lens (15mm), and NOT the 'fisheye effect', even if it is not a circular image? 'Fisheye' refers to the fact that any straight line that does not pass thru the center of the lens is shown as a curve.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2002881
The Peleng wouldn't work for them, I don't think, Andy. He said he was avoiding the circulars because the effect was too strong.

I know, but the effect of the 15 mm is not very strong on a 1.6x crop body.
It may not be immediately recognizable as a fisheye at all.

So ... as wilt also just asked ... are you going for a good wide angle or for that Fisheye effect?
Because >>THIS<< is all you'll get on a 1.6x crop camera with a 16 mm fisheye, and the 15 mm is not much wider.

Best regards,
Andy

You'll likely find the 85mm to be a more useful focal length unless you really need the wide angle of the 15mm. The distortion works in many shots but not most - and like Andy said, the novelty will wear off after a while.

That having been said - do you find you'd really benefit from an 85mm, given your current lineup? Seems that with a little walking either the 50mm or 100mm would give you the same effect.

What about a 24 or 35mm? What kind of body is this going on? Will an EF-S lens work for you? Lots of wide angle choices there... The Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens comes to mind, as well as several Sigmas.

genewch wrote in post #2002791
I'm thinking of adding a 15mm fisheye or a 85mm lens to my equipment. They obviously are different lenses of use. The 85mm sits well between my 50mm and 100mm macro/135mm. I went for a walk in a ancient animal fossil exhibition and found my 100mm macro a bit too long to handle (but it's great for skull shots). A 70-200mm zoom seems to be an overkill, and I can step back (quite a lot of distance) to substitute for zooming. A 85mm f/1.8 makes indoor shooting great. However, for shooting in exhibitions, festivals, fun events, etc, a 15mm diagonal fisheye makes much fun. I don't consider a circular fisheye because it's too drastic. But is a fisheye less useful for practical use than a 85mm? How should I prioritize the choices?

If I go for a fisheye, is Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye a good alternative of Canon?

You could ask the same about a telephoto vs a macro lens. Your decision is comparing apples and oranges. So, do you prefer eating apples (15mm fisheye) or oranges (85mm)?

Double Negative wrote in post #2003587
You'll likely find the 85mm to be a more useful focal length unless you really need the wide angle of the 15mm. The distortion works in many shots but not most - and like Andy said, the novelty will wear off after a while.

That having been said - do you find you'd really benefit from an 85mm, given your current lineup? Seems that with a little walking either the 50mm or 100mm would give you the same effect.

What about a 24 or 35mm? What kind of body is this going on? Will an EF-S lens work for you? Lots of wide angle choices there... The Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens comes to mind, as well as several Sigmas.

Agree so much. I'm afraid the fisheye effect will get bored soon after use, even the effect may get abused.

Another point that holds my purchase off is the closeness of 85mm to my 100mm macro. I'm afraid I can't get much benefit from a 85mm though it's a very good lens, unless I shoot indoor sports and portraits often.

But I'll not consider a wide angle at this moment because I own a 17-40mm and I'm already happy with it. I don't find a prime wide angle much advantageous over it, so I'd leave a 24mm f/1.4 in the shop.

Well, I like both apples (15mm fish) and oranges (85mm). But if they don't fit in my uses, I'd rather choose grapes, bananas,...

From the view of practicalness of use, I'd rate a 85mm better.

If you already have the 17-40mm, I'd probably leave it at that. The 24mm f/1.4L isn't really that good, at least compared to the 35mm f/1.4L (the lens I'm currently debating).

The Sigma 12-24mm might be an option, but I don't recall if it's EF-S.

The Sigma 12-24mm is for both full frame and cropped cameras (the 10-20mm DC is for 1.6x cropped cameras only). I'm not very contented with its blurred angles, but its distortion correction is very well done. IF I have to use large aperture at the wide angle side, I'd sacrifice a bit and choose a 28mm f/1.8. At least I get 45mm on my 300D, and it's f/1.8.

Thanks for all input. I get clearer in choosing the right items for myself. There are too many good lenses, but I have to be a sensible consumer and choose the ones that suit me most. What a pity to buy good lenses and leave them catching dust.

The 85/1.8 is a great lens and not a lot of $. I doubt you'd regret getting it. Kinda close to what you already have though. Plan ahead. Do you do a lot of macro? Given the budget, how about considering the TS-E 90/2.8? Sharp and can do things you can't do now.

genewch wrote in post #2007965
IF I have to use large aperture at the wide angle side, I'd sacrifice a bit and choose a 28mm f/1.8.

Also take a look at two very interesting Sigma lenses:
20/1.8
30/1.4

The 30/1.4 is my most used lens, and I compared it with my 28/1.8 that I had bought used at the same time as the Sigma ... as the Sigma was better, I decided to keep this. It can not be used on full frame (DC lens), but it surely rocks on a 1.6x crop camera.

Best regards,
Andy