Whould you buy a 14mm or 15 Fisheye?

I am considering housing a Canon 10D and with the 1.6 image crop I was wondering what are the disadvantages/advantages between these two lenses in a housing. I currently have a housed film camera which I use a 20mm lens which is equivelent to a Nikonos 15mm. This has worked extremely well for me and am trying to decide what my equipment reqirements will be when I make the switch to DSLR. Some info that I have gleaned so far:

14mm has an image area of approx 17mm lens and costs $1700

15mm has an image are also of approx 17mm since the 15 is a fisheye but costs $600

Does anyone have photos taken with these two lenses that they could share?

Thanks, Keith

My Webpage

The 14mm will be more like 22-23mm, not 17mm.

The 15mm fisheye will be much smaller/lighter and be more resistant to flare. It will also be much wider, though you will have distortion that may be a problem for certain shots. The distortion is easy to correct and is normally not a concern.

No question I would prefer the fisheye to the 14mm.

Which brands of 14mm and 15mm FE are you looking at, the Canon ($$$$) or Sigma($$)?

I had a Sigma 14mm briefly. It's a nice enough lens, but I ended up returning it for a Canon 17-40L. Down the road I might add a 15mm FE, in which case I'm not sure which I'll get. The Sigma is cheaper, and probably great, but I've been sticking with Canon lenses across the board for some reason.

Tom

I was looking at Canon. I have a Canon 17-40L, still waiting for my wifes 10D to show up. I would really like something wider than the 17 for CFWA shots. Glad to hear the 15mm may be a better option especially when considering the cost.

Keith

I'd also go with the FE, probably Canon.

I'm a nikon shooter, but facing a similar choice with Nikon glass I would also go for the FE.

I'm not a Canon shooter, but I've been on a photo trip (land) with a pro who had the 14mm lens. He was shooting film, so no crop factor. It's an incredible lens, the widest rectilinear lens out there. He bought it used for around $2000.

A local pro and Nikon shooter showed me his 14mm Nikon version. He was doing two shot panoramas with his. Again, nice lens.

These lenses are very expensive for what you get. Going that wide and getting straight lines requires a lot of expensive elements. On top of that, it only gets you the equivalent of 22mm. I believe 22mm is plenty wide, but it's a mighty expensive 22mm. I decided that I could buy 2 or 3 lenses for that, and did.

The fisheye's bent lines aren't as problematic underwater and actually provide an effect that can be quite appealing if the elements of composition are in the right place. You can also straighten the lines with software. You lose a little in the process, but the results are still acceptable.

So, I say get the fisheye.

If you are going to spend that kind of money, save it for one of those highly regarded IS zooms for top side use.

$1500+ for a '22mm lens' does seem a little extreme to me (perhaps if you're feeling that rich you should be saving for a 1Ds to put your 20mm on?). I've always thought the sigma fisheye was an actractive option on 1.6 crop Canon DSLRs, and am hoping to add it to my kit sometime soon (normally I only buy Canon glass, but would be willing to make an exception in this case).

There's some nice 15mm fisheye shots posted around this site.