 |
|
|
PriscillaH
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $370.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, cheap compared to 8-15L, Sigma quality, Fits underwater dooms!!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
no filters possible
|
|
I love this lens! I use it for mainly underwater photography. It is better than the 17-40mm lens because of colors and corner sharpness. It fits into the camera port nicely. I was thinking about getting the 8-15Llens but I wasn't impressed but the quality difference when taken underwater. My diver/photographer friends has the 8-15mm L. Not impressed at all considering the price. Buy this Sigma instead.
You can see a sample couple under the water here: http://www.tengerpartieskuvo.com/
There are two images taken wit the sigma, the 5th (couple from below and the 10th one, couple kissing)
Barely noticeable distortion and the clients loved the shot. I use a software to get rid/correct the fish eye effect when I take photos of people.
Highly recommended!
|
|
 Aug 31, 2016
|
|
Soulphoto2014
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 3, 2014
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Better than the Canon 15 2.8 fisheye, the partyphotography prime!
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
Best fisheye prime on the market, bought it to replace my Canon 15 2.8. Both lenses are compact, lightweight. The Sigma is the sharpest.
If you have money enough you can play with the 8-15L
I sold both fisheyes as I didn't use them anymore.
This one is ideal for partyphotography, in fact it was the only lens I used for partyphotography in dark Technoclubs 
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2014
|
|
Simon Swales
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 27, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp across the whole frame. Great colours and contrast. Small, light and unobtrusive. Fisheye effect.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cannot attach filters. Tendency to overexpose with high contrast scenes.
|
|
Had the choice to go with either this or the Canon version but went for the Sigma in the end and I am glad I did.
It is small, light and beautifully made. It has a two part lens cap - the spring loaded cap and a 25mm barrel which slides over the fixed lens hood. The hood gives it some protection when in use and the blades are metal.
The gold ring around the barrel signifies that it is an EX lens - comparisons can be made to Canon's L lenses - the Sigma is not weather sealed but in every other aspect it can be considered 'L' lens quality. My version is designated DG as it has an anti-flare & ghosting coating.
It's a perfect match on my Canon 5D mkII. It focuses very quickly.
The picture quality this lens gives is amazing and I mean AMAZING. It is incredibly sharp across the whole frame even in the corners. Colours are punchy and contrast is great. I do very little post processing at all with images taken with this lens.
It also has the best sunstars of any of my lenses when photographing night scenes.
On the down side, it does not take filters and this is a real shame given its optical quality but I have not knocked any marks off for this because for the money the lens in incredible.
If you are in the market for a Fisheye go out and get one of these beauties.
I'll show you what I mean:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/5988382102/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/swalophoto/7042788787/
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2012
|
|
wedding-
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Aug 18, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Focuses close, doesn't flare much, amazing sharpness!
|
|
Cons:
|
The finishing peels off after years of use
|
|
|
This is one amazing fish-eye! It's optically superb and that's all I care for. It's great on crop-frame DSLR and full-frame-DSLR. Focusing is a bit slow, but it doesn't matter since it's a fish-eye. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2011
|
|
vinyleater
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Sep 18, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $379.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, lightweight, reasonably sharp, less expensive than Canon.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft at 2.8, color somewhat muted.
|
|
|
I recently picked this up used from KEH. I had heard great things about the Canon 15mm Fisheye, but didn't want to spend another $200 for the Canon. Reading a number of good reviews of the Sigma, I decided to give it a try. So far I have only taken a few dozen test shots using a Canon 1ds Mk i, but I have been very careful with those. Contrary to what some reviewers have stated, my copy at least is not "tack-sharp" at 2.8. I agree with what a couple other reviewers indicated: that sharpness at 2.8 is "usable" but not stellar. Of course, I'm studying 100% crops. That's really the only way to make a true comparison among shots where sharpness is concerned. Things improve at 3.5 and 4.0. By 5.6 I would say the street sign I was shooting looked "tack-sharp" at 100%. So at 5.6 and smaller apertures, I would say center sharpness is very good. Corner sharpness is good to very good.
In comparison, for example, to my Canon 400mm f5.6 L, the Sigma is definitely not as sharp even at f8. Where it really suffers, though, in comparison to that lens is in color rendition. Next to the L lens, the colors look rather "flat." They're not awful, just nowhere near L quality. I have never tried the Canon 15mm Fisheye, so I don't know if it renders color better or not. I used to own the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle and sold it because colors lacked snap also with that lens.
I will keep this lens for a while at least to see what sorts of uses I can put it to.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2010
|
|
pbramble
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 21, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $609.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Lens Cap stays on, minimum focus distance is 5"
|
|
Cons:
|
Same Price as Canon 15mm, tends to overexpose
|
|
Haven't taken this lens off my 1ds II since I got it, great lens, very pleased with the build quality and my image quality. I have noticed a tendency for this lens to overexpose some, but that could also be user error. The IQ is great, and the DOF at smaller aperatures is sharp throughout. Sweet little lens.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010
|
|
Matt Kerby
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1722
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $425.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp all the way through the frame, Tack sharp wide open.. contrasty and the colors are great.... AF is SPOT ON.... I like the lens cap much better than the Canon version, it actuallly stays on! Small, light and EX tuff.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far.
|
|
|
I owned the Canon version and had a lot of fun with it....But I'd heard the Sigma was better...I was skeptical because the EF version is really good. The reviews are correct, the Sigma is better, I mostly notice it at the edges of the frame, doesn't seem to get soft at all and the center is L prime sharp.....Noticed this after just a couple frames, which was unexpected. As I said, the lens cap actually works which was something that bugged me about the design of the Canon. Also, I paid $425 US for it used. That's $125 less than the Canon goes for used....Usually I stick to the OEM, unless there's a clear winner.....and in this instance there is...SIGMA!
|
|
|
May 25, 2010
|
|
heaviestj
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 26, 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Mar 5, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $530.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
A very affordable lens, sharp and fun to play with.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of a way to add a filter to the lens. Would love to get an ND filter on this. Other than that, no issues at all.
|
|
|
It was a toss up between this one and the Canon 15mm lens. Asking local wedding photographers which one they preferred (In their spare time) they all pointed to the Sigma as a good buy. I tried both out in the store with my memory card, came home and did some quick comparisons and found that the Sigma was sharper. These were very 'unscientific' tests, but it proved enough for me to buy one. I have spent the week with this on the end of my 1DM4 taking close up shots of all my friends, rooms and anything that I couldn't normally fit in with a regular lens.
|
|
|
Mar 5, 2010
|
|
ersatz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 24, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 222
|
|
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 18, 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: France
Posts: 283
|
|
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: Off
Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 970
|
|
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: 17
|
|
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: 355
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
37
|
194797
|
Aug 31, 2016
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$389.71
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.26
|
9.39
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
