Wide angle vs fish eye lens ...

[Chris F]

I have a 16-35mm lens I use on the 5D. Thus far I have been very happy with this lens. Not exactly an every day lens, but every so often this wide angle lens comes in VERY handy !


On Saturday I was testing some lenses with Grant Atkinson, amongst others we used a fish eye lens ....


let's just say the 16-35 does not come close !



BUT, before I spend this type of money - a few questions

- who of you own a fish eye?

- how often do you use this lens ?

- is it just a handy "toy", or does it really have unique market ?

[Carel1966]

Hi Chris,
I own the Canon 8-15mm F4 (replaced a Sigma 8mm, which isf or sale by the way). I found scenarios, for example taking photos of a band, where the fisheye really comes in handy. It is definitely not an everyday lens and probably my least used lens, but I’ve seen some amazing photos taken with it. I know that the photographers that do extreme action close up also love to use it.

If you’re in the Centurion area you’re welcome to give the Sigma 8MM F3.5 EX DG Circular Fisheye a try (add is on ODP).

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

I don't think you should compare a fisheye with a standard wide... it's two different tools. I would love to have one, but I will not trade my 17-40 for the 8-15mm.

[jab2]

let's just say the 16-35 does not come close !

In what respect, Chris?

Just to clear my mind, what lens were you testing? I find frequently people confuse my 17mm TS/E for a fisheye merely because it has a bulbous front element, yet the lens is of rectilinear design.

If you are a Nikon shooter how about the Nikkor 6mm f2.8 fisheye. It has a 220 deg coverage, so can see behind itself.

[Chris F]

Jab "come close" is clearly used incorrectl here - as these two lenses are just so different.

Comparitively the 16mm, on a full frame sensor body, gives a WIDE angle with "minimal" distortion. Taking the same photo with the fish eye delivers a TOTALLY different result - but LOTS of distortion.

[Chris F]

Looking at the prices of these lenses QUICKLY cured this itch ...

[Mike Wrankmore]

Chris.....i was also interested with your "doesn't come close comment" as i just purchased a 16-35mm 2.8 II over the weekend and haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces.I'm glad you clarified that it's purely in perspective...that it doesn't come close.It also depends what you are using the lens for mainly.....most landscape requires normal perspective unless you want that fish eye effect.....so i think it becomes quite a specialist lens.Look forward to Grant's take on them all!

[Henk Coetzee]

Not exactly an every day lens

Diff'rent strokes. My walkaround 3-lens kit includes a 10-20 (on APS-C) that gets a remarkable amount of use. So much so that I sat and weighed up the benefits of using a 16-45 (optically better but not as wide) and decided to keep using the 10-20 as the wide in this kit.

[Chris F]

Chris.....i was also interested with your "doesn't come close comment" as i just purchased a 16-35mm 2.8 II over the weekend and haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces.I'm glad you clarified that it's purely in perspective...that it doesn't come close.It also depends what you are using the lens for mainly.....most landscape requires normal perspective unless you want that fish eye effect.....so i think it becomes quite a specialist lens.Look forward to Grant's take on them all!

Mike I have used my 16-35 a fair bit - STUNNING lens ! You will be very happy with it.


the fish eye just opens another world.



and YES, the intention is to go back to Saturday's venue with Grant - we are just waiting for some over cast weather. Can just imagine what fun Grant and I will have playing at a height of 30m on a swaying scaffold taking pics that nobody else will ever have the opportunity to take ... Grant already commented on my pics and suggested some other other lenses to get different perspectives .... Let's hope for some over cast weather in the next week, as the scaffold wont be up much longer.

[Jaco de Klerk]

I own a Canon 15/2.8 fish eye. Vs the 8-15 the appeal was in the price - I wasnt prepared to spend big bucks on the latter and have circular images (shorter end, on 5Dii).
Not using it frequently but it does work for landscapes if you have a relatively large subject and can eliminate straight lines near the edge (incl the horizon). 15FE delivers good IQ and sharpness.

[Gavin van Dam]

Am I right in saying that the 8mm circular fisheye will give almost full frame coverage on a crop sensor? Like the 550D for example?

[Carel1966]

More or less Gavin; PM me your email address and I can see if I can find something that was shot at 6mm on 1.6x crop factor.

[J-D]

I have a Bower 8mm Fisheye. It is a great lens, takes great pictures, but is 10x more difficult to work with than a wide angle zoom IMO, the field of view is just so big, that getting a composition that makes me happy is really difficult. I actually suggest, that if you are on the fence, go for the wide-angle, because it is less limiting.

[Chris F]

JD but that "look" is just AWESOME.

[walterpike]

I have had a lot of fun with an extreme wide angle, I typically use it for getting really close. I would love a fish eye, it fits into the I want list after the 120-300 f2.8

[ABDurbs]

BUT, before I spend this type of money - a few questions

- who of you own a fish eye?

- how often do you use this lens ?

- is it just a handy "toy", or does it really have unique market ?

Hi Chris

The 16-35mm and 16mm fisheye are clearly two completely different lenses. I don't own a 16mm fisheye but have used one over a weekend. I loved it and it was great fun to use. You can get up realy close and get very creative with the fisheye. That said it would be a lens I would not use often enough to justify the cost of buying one, especially when I have other more practcal lenses to buy.

So for me it would be a "fun" lens to have in the bag, and if I had the spare cash I would buy one right now.