Canon EF-S 10-22 vs EF 15mm Fisheye?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ChrisBrightwell, Jul 21, 2007.

  1. ChrisBrightwell macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #1
    OK ... I'm rounding out my kit (350D + 17-40/4L + 50/1.8 II + 70-200/4L) with an ultra-wide lens of some sort and I'm stuck between the 15mm fisheye and the 10-22mm zoom.

    I really love the idea of having a 180-degree FOV, even if it's wildly distorted, and can think of a few upcoming trips where such a lens would be *really* handy to have. The 10-22 seems more verastile, costs $100 more, and is EF-S (which is a problem if I ever upgrade to a full-frame body).

    Also, a fixed f/2.8 on the 15mm is a huge gain over the f/3.5-5.6 on the 10-22mm.

    I think the biggest problem for me is that I'll be giving up a lot of the fisheye effect to the 1.6x crop on my Rebel (effectively turning 15mm into 24mm), but I don't know what effect that ultimately has.

    I'm totally stuck on this, so I'm turning to the photo geeks here at MacRumors to help me out. :)

    Comments? Suggestions?
     
  2. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #2
    It's true that you won't get the full effect of the fisheye on the 350D. Buying the 15mm would be almost wasteful. Given the lenses that you have, you look like a candidate for a full-frame camera -- at some point. ;) The 10-22 EF-S can always be resold....but -- what would you think about this? I'll make my argument brief...:D

    1. The 10-22mm is the equivalent of a 16-35mm on Full-Frame
    2. You'd get the virtually the same wide angle from the 17-40 that you already own...if you had a 5D.

    3. So, to get the money for a 5D, apply the $700-800 formerly earmarked for a wide lens.
    4. Sell your 350D for $600
    5. That brings us to $1400...
    6. Find a used 5D for $1900 and...rob a bank for the extra $500.

    That may not be possible financially. It's just that I was in your position before with the 350D. I had that body, plus a 70-200 and the 50mm 1.8 -- then I bought the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS (EF-S) and 60mm EF-S lenses. Great glass at the time, but I had to sell them for a loss when I moved up to the 5D. The image quality is so incredible on the 5D that I wanted to nudge you in that direction. Just my 2 cents!! :)
     
  3. ChrisBrightwell thread starter macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #3
    I can't justify $2k on a new body, no matter how I finance it, at this point. :(

    I keep hoping that Canon will roll out a $1k body with a full-frame sensor, but I doube that ever happens. The 5d will happen ... someday. Just not any day soon.
     
  4. terriyaki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #4
    The 350D is a perfectly capable camera. If you're not going to upgrade to full frame anytime soon why hinder your lens setup for something that may be 3 years away?

    Anyways, out of the two given options I say go for the 10-22. Since it's a zoom it'll give you more versatility in terms of framing when doing things like landscapes and interior shots.

    Another option that you may want to consider, however, is the 8mm Peleng fisheye which is made specifically for crop cameras.
     
  5. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #5
    First of all, the two lenses are not comparable: the 10-22 zoom is not a fisheye, i. e. it is corrected so that straight lines are (approximately) straight. Both have very different uses and effects and IMHO it's a question of what you want to do. For everyday photography, the non-fisheye lens would probably be more useful.

    BTW, have you looked into third-party lenses? In particular there are two Tokina lenses you might find interesting: the 12-24 zoom and the 10-17 fisheye zoom (only fisheye zoom on the market). Both of them are held in high esteem by reviewers and are a lot cheaper than original manufacturer lenses.
     
  6. failsafe1 macrumors 6502a

    failsafe1

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    #6
    You already own the 17 so the 15 fisheye won't make much difference on your camera from the field of view. The 10 will be the equivalent of a 16 vs the 27.2 on your 17 so that is a bigger change. You can always sell the 10 zoom so that is not a problem. Unless you want something like the 8mm sigma the 10 combo is the only way to go.
     
  7. jlcharles macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wenonah, NJ
    #7
    The Peleng is a circular fisheye. They predate the digital cropped cameras. On a full-frame camera, you would get a huge amount of vignetting resulting in a picture like this:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdpatsdp/509948792/

    On a cropped camera, you get this:

    http://www.pbase.com/image/59132844
     
  8. terriyaki macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #8
    Ah, my mistake. I thought that I had read somewhere that they were designed specifically for crop cameras because they're actually able to fill the frame on them.

    Oh, and jlcharles, I think you have your link descriptions mixed up. ;)
     
  9. jlcharles macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wenonah, NJ
    #9
    Nope....on the cropped camera you get slight vignetting which is annoying, but on the full-frame, you get the huge amount of vignetting which is part of the image. With a cropped camera, you can crop it a bit and have the same effect as having a regular fisheye on a full-frame camera, albeit a bit more exaggerated.
     
  10. sjl macrumors 6502

    sjl

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #10
    Between those two lenses, on a 350D, I'd say go for the 10-22mm. Yes, it's EF-S, but it holds its value well; it's one of two "almost L series" EF-S lenses (the other is the 17-55mm f/2.8).

    A Canon fisheye on a 1.6 crop body is a waste of time and money; you miss out on the more extreme distortion at the edges. I'd love a good fisheye in my collection, but it won't happen until after I get a full frame body (which won't happen until after I get the 100mm macro and the 24-70mm f/2.8, so it's a long way off yet).

    If you're set on a fisheye, look at third party fisheye lenses; it'll be cheaper, and you can get the 180 degree field of view, unlike with the Canon fisheye.
     
  11. Sideonecincy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    #11
    I can only speak from experience on the ef 15mm. I owned it for a few months, it can give excellent shots and great wide angles. The big flaw, and reason I sold it, was that the lens cap wouldn't stay on, it was not tight. I would open my bag and the lens cap would be not protecting the lens anymore.
     
  12. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #12
    I am/was in a similar/opposite situation. I jumped the gun.

    I spent about $750 on the 10-22 and loved that thing to death. Sharp, fast, and wide. But I also started shooting FF with film for school and thought I might as well trade it for a 17-40 since "I'll go digital FF soon." Sold the 10-22 here on MR for only $500 :)( needed the money) and found a barely used 17-40 on ebay for $525. I now have extra-wide on my Elan, and only semi-wide on my 350D. Funds ran out after spending $1100 on supplies last quarter in my photo class, so now the 5D is a distant dream. :(
     
  13. localghost macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    #13
    The canon 10-22 seems to be a great lens.
    Have a look at the Sigma 12-24mm (F4,5-5,6 ?EX DG Asp. HSM**IF, fullframe!), too.
     
  14. CptnJustc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    #14
    I own a Sigma 15mm fisheye (one of their better lenses, to be sure) and the 10-22. The Sigma gives a neat little effect, even when cropped, and can be just the thing in certain situations, but overall the 10-22 is much more useful. You usually won't need huge apertures when shooting so wide anyway.
     

Share This Page