Would it be a mistake to think I could use the Canon 15mm f/2.8 FE for landscapes?

So, I'm looking for a wide angle for my newly acquired 5DII and I narrowed it down to the 17-40L, until I began looking at some threads on the Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye lens. Ideally, I would love to buy the 14L or 16-35L but seeing that this is only a hobby for me, I need to draw the line somewhere after buying the 5DII. So, that leaves me with a budget around $550-750, and the 17-40L and 15mm FE both fall right in this range.

While I am not super crazy about the fishyness (although I'm sure it would be lots of fun from time to time) the f/2.8 aperture would be pretty nice compared the the f/4 of the 17-40L, as well as the extra 2mm. And, from some of the sample images POTN users have posted in various threads, the 15mm FE definitely holds its own in image quality.

Do you guys think it would be a mistake to purchase this lens if my main goal in purchasing a wide angle is to take landscape photos? Or do you think it would be worth getting the fisheye (b/c of higher aperture and wider perspective) and simply correcting the fisheye distortion in post-processing for the times I don't want the fishy look?

Any advice you can give would be great...thanks.

Stick with the 17-40... good optics and a more useful range. The 15mm FE is not as flexible and cannot be used in a lot of situations. I own one and use it every so often, but I don't pull it out unless I feel it's fishy-ness will work for the photo. Hope this helps...

I own a 17-40 and am considering a 15mm, which I have rented. The 15mm isn't as fishy as I had expected it to be. It really shows its nature when you get straight lines too close to the edge of frame or when the subject gets too close to the lens. Otherwise, it mostly looks like an insanely wide angle if held parallel to the ground as its very sensitive to perspective shifts.

What other lenses do you have? I have a 24-105 which is pretty wide on the 5D already for normal use. The 17mm is wider but can't touch the field of view of the 15mm. One option I'm looking into is getting DxO Optics Pro (if I get the 15mm) and using it to correct the fisheye out of the 15mm.

Regarding aperture, landscape are usually done on a tripod and at higher apertures like f/16 so 2.8 vs. 4.0 shouldn't matter much for that. Shots from a non-fisheye lens should also be easier to stitch together for panoramas.

I say rent both for a weekend and see which you like better.

GeneMan88 wrote in post #9077023
Stick with the 17-40... good optics and a more useful range. The 15mm FE is not as flexible and cannot be used in a lot of situations. I own one and use it every so often, but I don't pull it out unless I feel it's fishy-ness will work for the photo. Hope this helps...

That's what I'm afraid of...wasting money on a paper weight because I find the fishy-ness too much most of the time...thanks for your input.

mike_d wrote in post #9077087
I own a 17-40 and am considering a 15mm, which I have rented. The 15mm isn't as fishy as I had expected it to be. It really shows its nature when you get straight lines too close to the edge of frame or when the subject gets too close to the lens. Otherwise, it mostly looks like an insanely wide angle if held parallel to the ground as its very sensitive to perspective shifts.

What other lenses do you have? I have a 24-105 which is pretty wide on the 5D already for normal use. The 17mm is wider but can't touch the field of view of the 15mm. One option I'm looking into is getting DxO Optics Pro (if I get the 15mm) and using it to correct the fisheye out of the 15mm.

Regarding aperture, landscape are usually done on a tripod and at higher apertures like f/16 so 2.8 vs. 4.0 shouldn't matter much for that. Shots from a non-fisheye lens should also be easier to stitch together for panoramas.

I say rent both for a weekend and see which you like better.

Thanks for this...

I currently own a 24-105L, 70-200L and a 50. Prior to the 5D2, when I had the XSi, I had the 10-22 and I was absolutely in love with that lens and almost always used it at 10mm when it was on the camera. As a result, I am DYING to finally throw a 15/16/17mm lens on my 5D2 as 24mm leaves me wanting more width, despite being fairly wide.

For landscapes, the 2.8 wouldn't come in handy as I usually stop down to about f/8 or so, but it would be nice to be able to use the wide angle in some indoor situations which would otherwise be too dark at f/4. Similarly, it would also be nice to get creative with some shots and take advantage of the DOF the f/2.8 also affords. This is why the 15mm peaked my interest.

I agree w/ Gene...17-40 is a great little lens. I had a 17-40 and a 15FE, and now have a 16-35mkI.

The 15FE is great fun and is actually pretty useful in very tight spaces or just for all sorts of fun creative uses. However, the 17-40 would give you a greater range of compositional options for shooting landscapes without cropping. It's not always about how wide you can go. Sometimes you may want to shoot at 24mm or 35mm. One thing that I like about both the 17-40 and 16-35 is that they balance really nicely on the camera and the zoom is internal (does not pass the filter threads), so they are nice and compact.

jubu wrote in post #9077090
That's what I'm afraid of...wasting money on a paper weight because I find the fishy-ness too much most of the time...thanks for your input.

a little fisheye goes a long way. i bought a sigma 15mm fisheye and it's the lens that got me into UWA and eventually led me to getting the 16-35L II. i wouldn't mind having another fisheye but i could never do without the 16-35L II .

ed rader

bacchanal wrote in post #9077139
I agree w/ Gene...17-40 is a great little lens. I had a 17-40 and a 15FE, and now have a 16-35mkI.

The 15FE is great fun and is actually pretty useful in very tight spaces or just for all sorts of fun creative uses. However, the 17-40 would give you a greater range of compositional options for shooting landscapes without cropping. It's not always about how wide you can go. Sometimes you may want to shoot at 24mm or 35mm. One thing that I like about both the 17-40 and 16-35 is that they balance really nicely on the camera and the zoom is internal (does not pass the filter threads), so they are nice and compact.

I noticed that the 16-35 MK I is fairly reasonable in price if you find a used one in good condition...how would you compare it to the 17-40 in terms of image quality? Would you recommend it over the 17-40, cost aside?

nothing you try should be regarded as a mistake...sometimes you have to be adventurous and do what others wouldn't to produce something a bit special.