Fisheye's for Canon APS-C

messplay

messplay

Active member
Looking for a good wide angle for some good closeups for on the hill and a general wide angle for some landscapes.

Rokinon 8mm f/3.5

Canon 15mm f/2.8

Sigma 10mm f/2.8

Rokinon being the cheapest, I've heard great things about it but it is only manual ap ring... can anyone justify the quality of the canon 15 or sigma 10 due to their price? is their much of a built quality difference between the lenses?
 
I'll be the new owner of a tokina 11-16 in the near future as well...just looking for a true fish to play with
 
if you get the canon 15mm, it won't be very wide or have much distortion on an aps-c. the sigma might be your best bet quality wise, but the rokinon/samyang/opteka is cheaper.
 
no need for an auto fisheye at all. But I'd say the 10mm sigma because the 8mm's all blPr
 
if you're getting an 11-16 don't even waste time looking at the 15mm, i will barely be fisheye on an aps-c anyways, its made for full frame.

ive heard great things about the sigma, the 8mm (samyang, rokinon, same shit) seems a little iffy but it is cheaper. But, as ive said before, in the photo/video industry you get what you pay for.
 
TRIPLE POST but...

Unless your getting the tokina for free, I'd skip it and get the new Canon EF 8-15mm F4L fisheye. Its really sharp, and its basically a combination of the tokina and a fisheye, but much sharper than the 10-17 (also another option).
 
If you're already are gonna have the tokina 11-16, why the spend your money on a pricey fisheye? put those bills towards something that will be more useful than some specialty lens.
 
the tokina 10-17 is a fisheye, so yeah it will look like the 8-15, neither will look anything like the 11-16
 
i (now) have an opteka 6.5mm, pretty much as wide as a gopro.

this whole edits filemdon t2i opteka 6.5mm

*i scracthed my friends fisheye halfway thru the day in this edit, watch the top left corner in some shots you can see*
 
Wait, i'm confused here.

Angles of view:

Tokina 10-17mm: 180° - 100°

Tokina 11-16mm: 108° - 82°

So the Tokina 10-17 @ 17mm would be an UWA, right? Hence, the 10-17 being more versatile.
 
it's a totally different perspective. Besides just being bubbly, taking the same photo with a fisheye and a wide angle will produce elements that vary in size and proportion between the two images.
 
let me get this straight...

since i am shooting with a 7D hence a crop sensor, the tokina 10-17 (although slower and not as sharp as the tokina 11-16) will be more of a fisheye to me than the 11-16 and therefore I won't need to worry about getting both the 11-16 + the......let's say, sigma 10?
 
Despite what the field of view is, they look much different. My tokina 11-16 has a very very very little distortion at 11 while the tokina 10-17 at 11 would have a ridiculous amount of distortion.
 
they are completely different lenses each with a unique look

the 11-16 is rectilinear which means strait lines stay strait

the 10-17 has "bubble" distortion, no matter how much you zoom in. Many people think zoom fisheyes turn into recliner lenses at the narrow end but that's just not true. It's still a fisheye, just cropped
 
Also, this thread has gotten me thinking about buying the 6.5mm or 8mm, getting the nikon 10.5 or sigma 10mm seems like the better quality choice, but i want something fucked up wide for shooting rails only really.
 
you seemed to miss that i didnt want a 10.5 i wanted 8 or 6.5. ive shot with a 10.5 and honestly it barely looked different from 11 on my tokina, just a little more distortion.
 
haha for sure. id be stoked on the nikon one, but reading up up the rokinon/power/pro optic 8mm and its said to be just as good as the nikon.
 
yeah, i have the rokinon, i mean that part doesn't matter, but, as long as you keep it like 5.6-11 its nice and sharp, and doesnt really require focusing, only thing is, if its not spot on exposure, the footage really shows it, but at 5.6, or 8, its for sure almost as sharp as my 17-50 at like 3.5..
 
lol 17-50 at 3.5 isn't saying much for sharpness. ken rockwell (lol@ken) said at 5.6-11 its just as sharp at the nikon 10.5mm which is pretty sharp.
 
lol 17-50 at 3.5 isn't saying much for sharpness. ken rockwell (lol@ken) said at 5.6-11 its just as sharp at the nikon 10.5mm which is pretty sharp.
 
over the 6.5? i feel like the 6.5 would really fullfil my wide ass shot im looking for. does anyone else except that dude who posted the video with the 6.5 have experience with the 6.5? the 8mm says its 180 degrees on 1.5 crop and the 6.5 says is 180 degrees on 1.5 too so should i just go with the 8?
 
based on everything I've read, It's literally the same lens, I don't have a clue why they claim different focal lengths. Or like 6 different brand names for that matter.
 
Oh, sorry for dub post, but just remembered something, the peleng 8mm is wider than all of those rebranded lenses, it dose have a shit ton of flaring, and a bit of vignetting.... but its wider...
 
I haven't used the 6.5, but I have shot both photos and filmed a bit with the 8mm, and it would for sure be something I would have in my bag if I did not shoot FF.
 
Yep, I've used both the 8mm and 6.5 mm and they are literally identical except for the brand name printed on the top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top