Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye & EF 24mm f/1.4

I have a 35L that is basically on its way, and I looking whether or not to add one of these in my bag. The majority of my work deals with landscape/cityscape photography. I shoot weddings on occassion, but it's not my profession. I have been leaning towards the 15mm Fisheye to just have some fun with since I figure the 35L would cover my lowlight shots at weddings, along landscapes or street shots. However, I have encountered a few people who own both the 24L and 35L, but I just think that having both lenses would be overkill, or would it?

Hi,
I got the fisheye and it's a fun piece of glass, but unless you are shooting airplane cockpits or something really cramped, well, at any rate the distortion could be trouble. I haven't worked with a software solution to get rectilinear results, but understand that some do this successfully with is lens. 24mm can be a fairly tame wide angle in today's world, and makes a 35mm seem like a normal lens. So with a significant jump like that, IMHO, it's not overkill at all. I'd probably get both.

So long for now, TOM

The 35L and 15 Fisheye are a great cpmbo, I recommend it, plus the fisheye is half the price

The 24mm f/1.4L isn't rated all that high, at least compared to the 35mm f/1.4L. Still a great lens. Might not be wide enough a difference to be worthwhile though.

The 15mm f/2.8 produces a definite fisheye effect. With software you can straighten it out at the cost of some corner detail. PTLens, for example - or Grasshopper. So a little extra PP work for best results.

I'm debating an UW prime myself lately. I want to like the 14mm f/2.8L but it's not rated that highly either. Besides, I have the 16-35mm f/2.8L which does a pretty good job as well so the 14mm prime doesn't really offer me any perks over the zoom (unlike my 35/85mm which are both brighter AND sharper). I may end up with a Sigma 8mm. Not sure yet.

Thanks for the replies!

Double Negative, yeah I read reviews on both the 24L and it didn't really receive high remarks, especially compared to the 35L. Then I was looking at the 14mm f/2.8L and that too did not get high remarks, either.

I think I'll stick with the 35L and the 15mm fisheye.

Double Negative wrote in post #2822603
I may end up with a Sigma 8mm.

I've got one of these on the wishlist. I've had some fun with my Zenitar - which is another option for the OP to save a ton of money.

I've also debated with the 14mm and the 16-35mm, but in the end I keep thinking my 20mm is only a few mm more.....and those are $1000+ pieces of glass. That's $1000 closer to a 500mm f4L

Anyway.....to get back on topic, the point of my post was to say "Yay for the 8mm FE" and nburwell should consider the 16mm Zenitar for less than $200.