Considering an ultra-wide angle lens

I am thinking about getting an ultra wide lens for a Canon full frame. I have considered stitching but for the scenes I would like to photograph the light changes too fast (Forest scene) to make it feasible.

Two considerations are the Canon 8-15 mm fisheye or the Canon 14 mm rectilinear. Both close focus to roughly the same distance. The fisheye FOV is 180 degrees vs. the 14mm with a FOV of 114 degrees.

My concern with the fish eye is distortion, my concern with the 14mm is its price and versatility.

Has anyone tried both and come away with a clear reason why they prefer one over the other? Or they really suited for two different applications... perhaps it isn't that black and white.

Hi Chris- I have used the 8-15mm on a FF 5DII and can tell you that at 8mm, you end up including some of the back parts of the lens and a lot of the mirror box in the image so you have to crop anyway, which then reduces the field of view of the lens to something significantly narrower than 8mm (see attached un-cropped image). I haven't used the Canon 14mm but I have used a 14 mm rectilinear lens on the 5DII. I own the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lens and use it on the 5DII with a Novoflex adapter. It is a fantastic combination, and one that Nikon still cannot compete with at that price point. You end up with a manual focus lens that is flat and sharp to the corners, and it works with aperture-priority auto-exposure.

Date: 5 November, 2011, Time: 1605h
Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Lens: EF8-15mm f/4L FISHEYE USM, @ 8 mm
Program: Manual
ISO 800, 1/40s, f/5.6
Exp. comp.: 0.0
Flash: off

Thank you John for your thoughts on the fisheye it seems like you might not be satisfied with it. I had considered the Nikon 14-24, but I am not completely sold on the idea of using a third-party adapter and manual focus only. There was one other 14mm I was considering: the Rokinon/Bower/Samyang 14mm, however B&H reviews say there are Q/C issues, while Photozone reports excellent resolution for the price (around $400) but has an odd distortion characteristic and like the Nikon option is manual focus only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Korman

Thank you John for your thoughts on the fisheye it seems like you might not be satisfied with it. I had considered the Nikon 14-24, but I am not completely sold on the idea of using a third-party adapter and manual focus only. There was one other 14mm I was considering: the Rokinon/Bower/Samyang 14mm, however B&H reviews say there are Q/C issues, while Photozone reports excellent resolution for the price (around $400) but has an odd distortion characteristic and like the Nikon option is manual focus only.

---

Hi Chris, I had a samyang 14mm f/2.8, my copy was extremely sharp wide open in 7d and 5DII. Have some distortion in the midlle of the frame, but you have some algoritms in net to correct it kn lightroom. If you use hiperfocal Its a problem, the distance scale in barrel Its not correct. I,m on vacations and writing on mobile, but sunday can put some imagens here...

Hi Chris- I don't own the 8-15, just borrowed it. It's nicely built and would be a lot of fun to use. The loss of AF in the rig I have takes some getting used to but now I am so familiar with the focus dial and DoF with the 14-24 that I could virtually set it with my eyes closed. IMO AF on an ultra wide lens is not necessary. When I need to I focus using Live View at max. magnification. I know you said you didn't want to stitch images together but the 17mm Tilt and Shift lens allows quick shifting of the lens to create seamless panos. The lens is ultra-sharp and very solid (again I don't own one but have used one).

Chris,

The widest lens I carry is 20 mm f/2.8. If I want wider, I simply create a mosaic. It would be a rare scene that would be changing so fast that mosaicing would be a problem. After all, it only takes a couple of seconds between frames. I often only carry a 28 mm lens on the short end. Here is an example of an 11 frame mosaic done in rising twilight with 30 second exposures (thus a changing light scene):
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/97958
The mosaic was done from left to right on the bottom, then working up.

The advantages of mosaicing includes framing the image as best for the scene (e.g. from square to wide panorama), and a higher resolution product.

Roger

Humberto, I would indeed be interested in seeing what you captured with the Samyang.

John, while I agree a ultra wide has less issue with autofocus, it is something good to have to offer one a little more creative flexibility. Funny, I was also thinking about the 17 TS-E but am not sure again about the trade off for manual focus, though it does go towards Roger's point about stitching when shot to shot timing is not as critical.

Roger, well the issue of stitching comes down to trying to stitch foliage and branches that move with the wind and light that changes, these things I rather not frustrate myself on the post production trying to make them "seamless" though your point about flexibility of stitching combined with the flexibility of the 17 TS-E has me wondering if a FOV of 104 degrees, versus 114 and 180 degrees respectively for the other options is "worth it" especially given the 14 and 17 are similarly priced.

Thank you all for your ideas.

Chris, don't have many, but will post some nocturnal i have taken, but only Sunday...

You can also use the EF 16-35 f2.8 L USM lens.