Hi,

I don't know if someone has posted this question before but I haven't found it!

I am a Nikon shooter but I'm thinking about moving to Canon. The only thing that I don't like about canon system is that cropped sensor cameras like D20 have no fisheye lenses. So, the question is:
Has anybody tested the Sigma 8 mm circular fisheye on a 1,6 cropped camera?

Thanks in advance

jordi

Hi Jordi,

Unfortunately there is no fisheye for the cropped sensor Canon digital cameras. The Sigma 8mm is not a good option because it is a circular fisheye and won't fill the frame (the top and bottom of the image circle will be cut off).

For more info check the thread:

http://www.wetpixel.com/PNphpBB2-viewtopic...light-8mm.phtml

Thanks Luiz, my doubt is now solved!
Best

I have heard the odd rumour that there might be an EF-S fisheye soon (although no more substantiated than Nikon releasing a D90).

I can't understand why there hasn't been one already. Canon have sold plenty of cropped sensor DSLR and they are all great cameras.
One thing going against the EF-S fisheye is that Canon keep slightly changing the image size on their DSLRS - these changes are only small (~5%) - but are more significant with a fisheye where a lot of the coverage is in the corners of the frame.

Nikon D1, D2, D100, D70 all have sensors that are 23.7x15.6mm.

Canon 10D, D60 and 300D are 22.7x15.1mm
Canon 20D is 22.5x15.0mm
Canon 350D is 22.2x14.8mm
(Canon 1D Mk2 is 28.7x19.1mm)

The problem is that if Sigma made a lens that gave 180 degree coverage on the Nikon sensor size it would fall a long way short of this on the Canon. If they engineered one specifically for Canon they would have to go for the largest Canon sensor - would that be the 1D Mk2 or the 300D? I think that this may be putting off third party manufacturers with the fisheye. On other lenses this 5% difference in picture area (excluding the 1D Mk2) is of little significance.

But I am surprised that Canon themselves haven't knocked one out yet. I got my Nikon 10.5 16 months ago.

Alex

The need for a fisheye is very personal. It depends on how you shoot and the subjects you shoot. I could not imagine shooting underwater without a fisheye - and would not choose a system where I didn't have one. Whereas I can live without a wide rectilinear - I have never bought a 12-24mm!

Others prefer the wide rectilinear and don't like fisheyes.

Alex

Interesting...
Can't say that i know a lot of your history Alex, i have only been reading this forum/webpage for about 6-8 months or whenever i came back to the real world which is where i have discovered your name/work. I admire your work, and have been impressed by your knowledge and posts that you have added to Wetpixel over this time period.
HOwever, from what i recall from reading past posts, you were a film shooter, as well as medium format, before (and perhaps still?) going to digital.
This leads to my question.
Did you ever shoot with a Nikonos or Nikon RS? (wide rectilnear 15mm or 20mm)
The fact you say you have never used a wide angle other than a fish eye leads me to believe no...

I am by trade (90+%) a wide angle shooter. I like a fisheye, most familiar with the 16mm on film, but find it to be very limited. I must say that my specialty is the CFWA but still found the 16mm to be limited unless i was on a specific dive looking to find a specific picture. I much prefer the 15mm on Nik V as a general all around lens for most situations.

Today, i have finally put the 12-24mm in the housing (D70) after owning it for 3 or 4 weeks (shooting video so no time for myself) Unfortunately, mantas going off but viz about 20 feet and very green so didn't really experiment with it so don't know its ups and downs.

Would love to hear your thoughts on why you like the 10.5 over the 12-24. Is this something to do with the quality of the lens or? BOth have their places but??? I have seen some great 10.5 shots, especially from Blue Holes in Palau but i would think the 12-24 (18-35 on film) would be a lot more useful.
I can understand a compostion and originality point of view but i really think the "fisheye" view of the lens is limited and was wondering what you prefer for standard wide angle?
Cheers
Mike

Hi Alex,

I agree with you, I couldn't imagine shooting underwater without FE, but I want a system that allows me to take the picture I want, and sometimes a wide rectilinear is better than a FE. That's why I am not convinced at all to move to canon cropped sensor system ( I can not consider canon FF because is very expensive), as a system Nikon is better because you have the right lense for every application.
Canon cameras seem better although the lack of FE for cropped ones.
Best

Jordi

Hi Mike,

I think you back up my point exactly. You have some stunning UW images. So I think this thread now gives both points of view about the fisheye - to me it is first choice ahead of rectilinear, to you the opposite.
I don't believe there is a right or wrong. Just preference. If we all thought the same then all our pix would be the same and that would be a disaster!

To be a bit more serious. I think part of your preference for rectilinear comes from subject matter you are exposed to (exposing). When I shoot mantas or sharks or other large marine life - I shoot rectilinear too.

Plus, yes, I think you are right about my "education". I have shot the fisheye so much that I have just got used to it (and Jordi sounds the same). I find when I shoot another wide angle lens I always get to close and most of the subject is cropped out of the frame! I learned the fisheye on my F100. I only once tried it on the RS (couldn't afford to buy one and had a 20-35mm instead - and never took the 15mm rectilinear off the Nik V).

Once I got used to fisheye it is just the way I see wide angle underwater. You know what it is like - swimming round looking for shots - well I just see fisheye shots. I can't see rectilinear shots as easily. I think you make a good point about education/habituation to a particular system.

Alex

p.s. Must admit that I enjoyed shooting the 20mm on the D70 the other week: