Price reality check= 8-15mmL

Here:

http://www.amazon.com …4OZU?tag=thedig​italpic-20

it is almost 1600$. You are kidding me. I own a 15mm fish and a 10-17mm fish that I was totally planning on selling for this new L but no way now.

This is just absurd really. Who does canon think will buy this? I am just in awe really. I mean the 24LII is pricey but for darn good reason, it is a 1.4!

I just dont get this at all.

I have been waiting for this for a long time, a Canon 1D "full frame" fish. And they put it out at that cost? Totally uncalled for.

Why uncalled for? It is unique in that it is a fisheye for both APS-C and FF, and on FF it is both a circular 180 degree FoV fisheye at 8 mm and diagonal 180 degree FoV frame filling fisheye at 15 mm. Furthermore, it is an L, with the build quality, better coatings, etc., and all that goes with that.

We'll have to see and wait, but I do fully expect it to beat the EF 15 F/2.8 FF fisheye, and if it does, I reckon it is worth the money.

Kind regards, Wim

Huh, I wouldn't have thunk that someone would get up in arms about an Ultra-Mega-Super Wide Angle L-series zoom priced in the mid-teens...

I'm kind of surprised it's not more. Being super specialized and all, I don't think will sell all too many compared to normal lenses. I was expecting $2k+.

I thought the same thing as the OP when I saw the price of this lens.

wimg wrote in post #11151096
Why uncalled for? It is unique in that it is a fisheye for both APS-C and FF, and on FF it is both a circular 180 degree FoV fisheye at 8 mm and diagonal 180 degree FoV frame filling fisheye at 15 mm. Furthermore, it is an L, with the build quality, better coatings, etc., and all that goes with that.

We'll have to see and wait, but I do fully expect it to beat the EF 15 F/2.8 FF fisheye, and if it does, I reckon it is worth the money.

Kind regards, Wim

Beat it in what? The 15mm is so sharp, I have had 2 copies and they were razors.

The weather sealing and build is a nice upgrade i suppose. So on all your points your right.

In reality you make some good points, I guess I am just confused that Canon thinks people will pay for this lens.

I see it like this. This lens does not apply to APC users for a couple reasons.

1) It is so damn expensive for a fisheye lens.

2) Tokina and Sigma make 10mm and 10-17mm lenses aimed at that market.

Full frame users already have the option of a 15mm 2.8 that (please dont come at me with whatever you have seen if you dont own or have used one) did not need an update. It is a niche lens for most and I use it so much to know it works perfectly.

So this lens was suppose to address Canons lack of a full frame fish for 1D chips. While it does do that, it does it at a hefty price.

No thanks, I would rather move to a D3 and a 16mm fish. The cost might almost play even.

This lens is a reasonable choice with a FF camera and nothing else. On FF you get both a diagonal and circular FE in one, and considering the cost to buy both such lenses this is not out of line.

For smaller formats this lens is pretty much just a diagonal FE, and it's a lot of money for that. Pretty much every FE lens ever made is sharp, so what do you get for so much more money?

Not totally uncalled for. As for the price, if you think about it, it is a constant aperture zoom lens (f/2.8!). Coupled with it being an L lens and its fisheyeness, there is good reason for the price to be that way.

And who would buy it? Videographers. And maybe the more serious hobbiest who takes FE pictures more frequently than most.

It's constant f/4.

JeffreyG wrote in post #11151342
This lens is a reasonable choice with a FF camera and nothing else. On FF you get both a diagonal and circular FE in one, and considering the cost to buy both such lenses this is not out of line.

For smaller formats this lens is pretty much just a diagonal FE, and it's a lot of money for that. Pretty much every FE lens ever made is sharp, so what do you get for so much more money?

*well to be fair if you owned a FF, APC and APS-H this would be a perfect lens. As I did own all 3 formats at one time (5D/1DIII/20D/40D) I do own a 10-15mm fisheye coverage.

From someone who does a fair amount of fisheye work I can tell you that I have zero understanding of a need for a circular fisheye. I cannot really see an avenue for professional work with this technique. That is the definition of a niche technique/effect.

I was exited to see this lens come out because it fits what I need and what canon has lacked since it went digital:

A full frame fisheye lens "180 diag" for any of their sport cameras, Mainly the 1D series as that was the highest frame rate.

Nikon did it with the 10.5mm fish and then completed it with their D3/D700 16mm combo.

mikeassk wrote in post #11151296
Beat it in what? The 15mm is so sharp, I have had 2 copies and they were razors.

Although it is supposedly the best fisheye for FF out there, it can still be improved upon in the edges and corners. Other than that, if they do upgrade it à la 70-200 F/2.8 II, optics wise, it wil be better.

I think one of the strong points is that it is a proper fisheye for APS-C, APS-H and FF, and on FF it is both a circular and a diagonal frame filling fisheye. IOW, it is 4 fisheyes in one, and other than that we wil have to wait for the test results.

The Tokina 10-17 isn't full 180 degrees on Canon APS-C (owned one), although you can get about 183 degrees on FF with it without vignetting (tested that). Also, the edges and corners leave a little to be desired still. I don't know about the Sigma.

Kind regards, Wim

ctrlcctrlv wrote in post #11151363
Not totally uncalled for. As for the price, if you think about it, it is a constant aperture zoom lens (f/2.8!). Coupled with it being an L lens and its fisheyeness, there is good reason for the price to be that way.

And who would buy it? Videographers. And maybe the more serious hobbiest who takes FE pictures more frequently than most.

Why would they just not purchase the 15mm?

wimg wrote in post #11151418
Although it is supposedly the best fisheye for FF out there, it can still be improved upon in the edges and corners. Other than that, if they do upgrade it à la 70-200 F/2.8 II, optics wise, it wil be better.

I think one of the strong points is that it is a proper fisheye for APS-C, APS-H and FF, and on FF it is both a circular and a diagonal frame filling fisheye. IOW, it is 4 fisheyes in one, and other than that we wil have to wait for the test results.

The Tokina 10-17 isn't full 180 degrees on Canon APS-C (owned one), although you can get about 183 degrees on FF with it without vignetting (tested that). Also, the edges and corners leave a little to be desired still. I don't know about the Sigma.

Kind regards, Wim

This is because it is on nikons format. To be frank the difference is very minimal.
Comparing shots with 15mm Canon on 5D and 10mm Tokina on a 20D you can barley tell the difference.

You are right though, the tokina is not a stellar performer, it hangs in there at around f8 though.

mikeassk wrote in post #11151415
*well to be fair if you owned a FF, APC and APS-H this would be a perfect lens. As I did own all 3 formats at one time (5D/1DIII/20D/40D) I do own a 10-15mm fisheye coverage.

From someone who does a fair amount of fisheye work I can tell you that I have zero understanding of a need for a circular fisheye. I cannot really see an avenue for professional work with this technique. That is the definition of a niche technique/effect.

I was exited to see this lens come out because it fits what I need and what canon has lacked since it went digital:

A full frame fisheye lens "180 diag" for any of their sport cameras, Mainly the 1D series as that was the highest frame rate.

Nikon did it with the 10.5mm fish and then completed it with their D3/D700 16mm combo.

So, you define what the definition of a niche technique or effect is, or professional work for that matter? Next time I need to know I'll make sure to knock on your door.

Actually, had you done some homework, you would have known that fisheyes were invented for scientific work (and yes, that is a niche), for night photography of the star fields, more specifically even for use at the poles, and that subsequently non-scientific photographers started using it for "normal" work.

What you are saying is that the 8-15L isn't for you. That's fine. No need to play down anybody else's needs, whether perceived or true.

BTW, I do not own a fisheye anymore. I liked the Tokina 10-17, but didn't use it enough.

Regards, Wim

mikeassk wrote in post #11151415
...I have zero understanding of a need for a circular fisheye. I cannot really see an avenue for professional work with this technique....

I used one for a project where I needed to make measurements of the angluar height of the horizon from lots of separate places. By pointing a circular fisheye (I used the Nikon 8mm) to the zenith you can simply measure the height around the perimeter of the image. That particular lens made it easy because of its equidistant projection, where distance from the centre of the image had a linear relationship with angle, but any fisheye could be calibrated to give the desired measurements.

Circular fisheyes were invented to provide a single shot of the entire sky, for meteorological and astronomical applications.