|
|
ersatz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Aug 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good AF, nice build quality, great contrast, and the unique diagonal fisheye effect
|
|
Cons:
|
Integrated petal lens hood so you cannot use any protective filters which is a shame since I lens scratches easily.
|
|
I'm going to compare this to the Canon 15mm as it is a replacement since the Canon met an unfortunate demise. The price is roughly $100USD cheaper than it's Canon counterpart. I find AF speed to be nearly identical though perhaps the Canon is ever-so faster in low light. AF noise is a bit louder in the Sigma but both have excellent AF accuracy.
Biuild quality is roughly the same. Neither can accept front lens filter which is a shame. I found the front element on the Sigma to scratch more easily. Shooting in the desert, I have some pits on the lens coating on the Sigma. Never had any on the Canon but I only shot in sandy wind blown conditions with the Canon twice as opposed to over 14 times with the Sigma. I've found a few occassions where I'd like to have used a ND or polarizing filter on the front element but again it's not an option for either lens. On the plus side the Sigma hood is metal so it far less likely to bend. I've bent the hood on the Canon just trying to place hte lens cap on it.
Now, onto sharpness. At least with the copies I've had I think the Sigma has better corner sharpness though wide open the Canon might have slightly better center sharpness. On a crop body however you cannot tell much difference except for maybe Sigma's slight edge in corner sharpness. But past f/8 or even 5.6 you cannot tell much difference.
As for contrast, color reproduction, etc, I find the two to be quite comparable.
In the end you can't go wrong with either but given the price difference and the better non plasticky feeling build quality, I'd go with the Sigma. The Canon really has no advantages over the Sigma in this focal length.
|
|
 Aug 24, 2009
|
|
ray_lam5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 71
|
|
Review Date: Mar 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, sharp, light
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Only used on an interior snap shot and the curvature is fun and not off putting. I liked the fact it doesnt distort in a wavy way like my 18-200vr so is easily correctable in NX.
It looks sharp above f4 but usable at 2.8. looks like a high quality optic and i remain impressed with sigma wide angles. Much nicer to have in a bag then the hefty 12-24 and cheap too.
|
|
|
Mar 11, 2008
|
|
Aerospace
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 8, 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 225
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp,Affordable
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
I had Canon 15 mm fisheye,and now this one...Not really different,except the price.......
It works very well with my 1DMKIII.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2008
|
|
neridah
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 17, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 923
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Outstanding picture quality - Tack Sharp - Unobtrusive - Affordability...!
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels a little plasticky...In comparison to Sturdy "L"Metal Mounts...!
|
|
I am a canon addict and wholly swear by their lenses i own most 'L Lenses so it was going to be difficult to convince me of switching to an inferior manufacturer however after rigorous testing and comparing both the Canon EF15mm 2.8 and the sigma equivalent...I can honestly say this lens blew the canon out of the water in areas of sharpness color reproduction responsiveness and above all price!
This is a brilliant lens! "The ultimate fish eye" an absolute must have addition to any real estate architectural or landscape photographers arsenal. It simply represents "L" Series quality at a very down to earth and affordable price!
Go grab it you gotta have it !!!
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2008
|
|
neographikal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 14, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at 2.8, really tack-tack sharp when you close it down a bit. Hardly any CA (less then my 17-40 F/4L) and _very_ contrasty (almost keeps up with the 17-40 + pola..) Build is good, focusring could be better damped though. The Canon-counterpart could not beat this in a mile.
|
|
Cons:
|
Exposed frontelement, but it's a fish, so that's natural. AF is not really fast, but it is spot-on and it doesn't need to focus a lot (+1m most extreme setting)
|
|
I mainly use it for indoor oversights during party's and occasionally for landscape uses, and man this thing is sharp as hell. When you close it down to F/8 it is just unbelievable. Also the contrast is just stunning, it can almost keep up with my 17-40 F/4L + Hoya Pro1 pola...
|
|
|
May 8, 2006
|
|
ChetNich
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $360.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, quick focusing on both the 10D and 1DsII, Great colour and contrast. One of my best lenses. Every shot has a quality to it they are never flat or ordinary. Small for transport.
|
|
Cons:
|
I keep shooting my finger while focusing.
|
|
I love the look of the fish it makes us look at the world differently. Truely this would be the only lens I would have to keep. Software will defish so the fish effect is optional.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2006
|
|
GDBA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 15, 2004
Location: Japan
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
cost performance, sharpness, build quality, bokeh, color reproduction
|
|
Cons:
|
not HSM, finish wears away quickly, tape inside hood ring is low budget
|
|
To anybody looking for a fisheye lens, I recommend this lens without reservation.
Sure it has its drawbacks, but it's a game day player. There are few lenses out there with this performance at this price.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2006
|
|
cuglanica
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 18, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 354
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build Quality, Bokeh, FOV, DOF are all excellent
|
|
Cons:
|
Haven't found any issues yet.
|
|
Picked this wonderful addition up from a fellow FM'er. Having had no previous exposure to a fisheye lens, I was not sure what to expect.
I am THRILLED with the quality of this lens, and the photographs it has a hand in producing. I would absolutely buy this again, and might even consider paying full retail for one, should this one ever fail me.
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2005
|
|
marsupialj
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2005
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Great f.o.v., close minimum focus distance, decently fast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap paint peels off, annoying hood/lense cap problems, scratches easily.
|
|
I was pretty happy with this lense until recently. It focuses to rather short distances, has decent bokeh when wide open, and has a great FoV on all camera bodies (1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6).
unfortunately, one year on my hood is broken, the lense surface is pretty scratched up (can't put a UV on it), and the paint is peeling off.
Overall, I'd probably still buy it... but you might want to consider the equivalent canon/nikon lenses. They aren't all that much more expensive.
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2005
|
|
Heechee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 382
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp in center and corners, wide angle, good for distorting stuff, depth-of-field scale on the lens, excellent multi-star highlights when stopped down
|
|
Cons:
|
Bad bokeh, focus ring in manual focus turns too easily, lens scratches easily
|
|
I use this lens mostly in manual focus, at f8 and above, manually focused to the hyperfocal distance. This works perfectly, except that the manual focus ring is a bit too loose and it's easy to turn it unintentionally.
My lens front focuses at close distances, and so far I've not yet got around to sending it for repairs as Sigma in Finland have only a non-Sigma representative. The f2.8 aperture is quite useless for me because I dislike the bokeh of this lens; in addition to the focus problem.
The focal length is relatively ok on 20D, however the 17-40L and this fisheye on a film body are a lot more *fun*.
If Canon made a fisheye similar to the Nikon 10.5mm, I'd buy it at once instead of this one.
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2005
|
|
Rowdy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 452
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality feel, nice and wide perspective without pictures being too goofy-wide looking. Excellent price, colors are bright and pictures are very sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
None found.
|
|
Bought it today and haven't found any negative issues with it, my first Sigma lens so I'll need to wait see how it is in the future. Wanted something wider than a Canon 17-40 or 18-55 for car pictures in tight parking lots. Great bang for the buck, it seems like a great value for my application, (Canon 20D).
Like I mentioned earlier, isn't TOO super-wide angle, (thanks to the 1.6 crop factor in the 20D's), some fisheye pictures can look really goofy sometimes in my eyes.
I highly recommend it if you want to go a little wider and have a fast lens, it's a prime so you will need to zoom with your feet, if you need something along these lines, I think you will be happy with it.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2005
|
|
phidong
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2195
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $315.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focus, excellent build quality, affordable, comes with pouch
|
|
Cons:
|
if i had to say one thing, it's the double lens cap (theres a cap and a ring, canon just has a cover that is one piece, the sigma is two)
|
|
This is an excellent lens. The quality, colors, etc. rival the Canon in every way and the price shatters the competition. It is significantly cheaper than the Canon equivalent, but the performance is on par or better. On a 1.6x crop body, there is still some distortion, but not a lot.
If you want a full fisheye effect, the 8mm is the way to go, but I like the look of the 15mm. Everything about this lens is a winner.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2005
|
|
|
