There’s clearly enough space inside the lens—anyone want to try adapting an extender in exchange for some focusing capability? 🙂

Jokes aside, this view also pretty much confirms that adapting an extender isn’t realistically possible.

At this point, I honestly don’t see much reason to choose this lens over the EF 8–15mm f/4L.

The 8–15mm is sharp enough for me with sufficient field of view.

29 minutes ago, atus said:

Well, as we say in Spain "mi gozo en un pozo". For me, buying this lens only to produce circular images doesn't make any sense. I guess Canon is not going to do it, so to use in underwater photography we need a third party manufacturer to produce a multiplier.

I also have noticed that this lens is quiet long, so at the day is the same size that the 8-15 with the RF adaptor ring.

Like the 8-15mm, it is really just a 14mm prime with a party trick. The circular images are really fun, but I also noticed in some of the example images the ring of color cast/distortion (chromatic aberation?) at the edges which I was hoping to not be present in this new lens, is there. Plus 190 degrees may just not work on a housing.

Yes - extending would be nice to add in zoom functionality.

No IS, kinda a bummer.

I am interested in its EVU/ VR utility application and if that would work underwater for landscape experiences.

Looking forward to underwater tests, and while excited - it would need to bring some real improved gains to get rid of my 8-15mm to see if it is worthwhile.

1 hour ago, Thales said:

There’s clearly enough space inside the lens—anyone want to try adapting an extender in exchange for some focusing capability?

If you follow my link above, you'll find the sentence:

'This lens is not compatible with Canon extenders.'

9 hours ago, waso said:

If you follow my link above, you'll find the sentence:

'This lens is not compatible with Canon extenders.'

I have read that. Therefore, I wrote “also”.

I have added a visual to confirm what has been written.

On 2/6/2026 at 1:34 AM, waso said:

If you follow my link above, you'll find the sentence:

'This lens is not compatible with Canon extenders.'

I didn't see that in the linked page and I searched the article, is it in the video or somewhere like that? I think UW photographers are the only people on the planet who might be interested in adding a converter? The issue is that the Canon RF 1.4x has a very long nose.

On the 190deg field maybe the solution is to position the lens at the 180 deg point in the lens and the blue ring will be vignetted out?

On the filter holder, this is similar to what is used on the big tele lenses. If it gets in the way of the zoom ring you might be able to remove it and put some tape over the hole. Also the position of the zoom gear in the housing will influence whether it's a problem, the Nauticam housings for example position the camera back in the housing so there is room for an RF-EF adapter, which means the gear will be forward of where the filter holder is.

All of this will be confirmed or otherwise no doubt once the housing manufacturers have tried it out.

4 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

I didn't see that in the linked page and I searched the article, is it in the video or somewhere like that?

It's ritten in the article and your have to scroll down more than half the page. Tonight I can make a screenshot.

A question come now as i own the 8-15 and use on R7 (before on 40D, 50D, 70D, 80D).

What i will gain in the long term? Better IQ? one more mm ?

On 2/5/2026 at 12:40 PM, CaolIla said:

Not sure i'll be happy for some dive where I take such pictures,where a fisheyes will deform the line

Looks like the „gangway“ is about in the middle of the frame. In that case, a fisheye would not have distorted the lines much. The distortion is really only very visible towards the „corners“, but interpret the term generously. You can get images that look as if they were taken with a rectilinear, but your composition is limited if that is your goal.