Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM

On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

Available from 1/1/11.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
or:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...4l_fisheye_usm

With the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

There are some fisheye adapters available for P&S cameras--like all of
the P&S lens adapters, the quality varies from mediocre to abysmal, but
they can be fun to play with anyway.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

Available from 1/1/11.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
or:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...4l_fisheye_usm

With the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

Fluorine? LOL

Is that also used in your computer-controlled geysers that you help to
install in your troll's role-play virtual-reality imaginary online life?

http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101



There are some fisheye adapters available for P&S cameras--like all of
the P&S lens adapters, the quality varies from mediocre to abysmal, but
they can be fun to play with anyway.

Which only goes to prove that you've never used any of them before. Well
that's understandable, since YOU DON'T EVEN OWN, NOR HAVE EVER USED, ONE
SINGLE CAMERA IN YOUR WHOLE LIFETIME. (proved many times)

On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
said:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

Available from 1/1/11.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
or:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...4l_fisheye_usm

With

the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

Fluorine? LOL

I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.

In the one directly above, you will find the following:
"It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.

LOL, indeed.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 21:09:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
said:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

Available from 1/1/11.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
or:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...4l_fisheye_usm

With

the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

Fluorine? LOL

I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.

In the one directly above, you will find the following:
"It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.

LOL, indeed.

You want to talk about your flat-footed Barney-Fife-mentality ignorance? I
suggest you go educate yourself on the most rudimentary of chemistry
knowledge. What's the matter? Did you miss school while pretending to play
cops and robbers? Apparently even the Canon webpage personnel are capable
of serious typos. This is what happens when total morons on the net read
something and then mindlessly parrot it all over the place, trying to act
like they might know something.

fluo•rine \"flur-'en, "flor-, "flor-\ noun [F, fr. NL fluor] (1813)
: a nonmetallic halogen element that is isolated as a pale yellowish flammable irritating toxic diatomic *GAS* — see element table

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All
rights reserved.

*CAPS* emphasis added.

Fluorine falls right between oxygen and neon on the periodic table. Yeah,
lets see those oxygen and neon coated optics too.

LOL, more indeed!

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 21:09:03 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:



I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.

P.S. YES

On 9/4/2010 9:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
said:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

Available from 1/1/11.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
or:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...4l_fisheye_usm


With

the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

Fluorine? LOL

I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.

In the one directly above, you will find the following:
"It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.

Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:15:54 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 9/4/2010 9:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
said:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

Available from 1/1/11.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
or:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...4l_fisheye_usm


With

the advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

Fluorine? LOL

I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.

In the one directly above, you will find the following:
"It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.

Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

Are you a know-nothing, role-playing, pretend-photographer, psychotic
net-life, virtual-life, mommy's-basement-living,TROLL all rolled into one?

Yup!

On 2010-09-04 22:15:54 -0700, SMS said:

On 9/4/2010 9:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-09-04 20:37:57 -0700, Outing Trolls is FUN!
said:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:14:22 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 9/2/2010 10:54 AM, Bruce wrote:
I saw the announcement for this lens about a week ago but don't recall
it being discussed in the rec.photo.* newsgroups. As the header says,
it is a zoom fisheye lens. It has full frame (24x36) coverage at 15mm
and the usual circular fisheye image within the full frame at 8mm.

I'm not a fisheye fan, so would be unlikely to buy one. But it must
appeal to some, otherwise why design, develop and manufacture it?

Available from 1/1/11.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/366efnj
or:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profes...4l_fisheye_usm


With

the

advent of digital, fisheye lenses actually are more useful than
they were for film. Besides the usual uses (meterology), you can use
postprocessing to get a very wide FOV, with only slight loss of detail.
An MSRP of $1400 means it'll likely retail for around $1100, which is
not unreasonable for an L lens with Fluorine coating.

Fluorine? LOL

I guess you are too brilliant to read the URL's posted.

In the one directly above, you will find the following:
"It features UD glass for suppression of chromatic aberration, a
Subwavelength coating for reduced ghosting, a newly developed Fluorine
coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum,"

Who cares if it works, or not. What is demonstrated yet again is your
psychotic arrogance based on ignorance.

Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

No, he is more like the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of
The Lambs" and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber rolled into one.
Even Navas has some redeeming qualities. He is capable of taking good
photographs (even with a super zoom), he has some skills & knowledge
when it comes to competitive sailing, and he seems to have a social
conscience.

Though sometimes he is capable of provoking a head pounding argument.
Especially when he and George Kerby go at each other. At that point I
just move to the side lines as rationality has gone out the window.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/4/2010 10:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

No, he is more like the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of
The Lambs" and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber rolled into one.
Even Navas has some redeeming qualities. He is capable of taking good
photographs (even with a super zoom), he has some skills & knowledge
when it comes to competitive sailing, and he seems to have a social
conscience.

Though sometimes he is capable of provoking a head pounding argument.
Especially when he and George Kerby go at each other. At that point I
just move to the side lines as rationality has gone out the window.

The shtick of our favorite troll and the shtick of Navas got old a long
time ago. Nothing ever based on rationality. It's what's destroying
Usenet. Kill-files help, but the trolls still drive normal people away.
It seems to all come from an almost insane jealousy that there are
people that know so much more than they do.

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:34:52 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 9/4/2010 10:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?

No, he is more like the serial killer "Buffalo Bill" from "Silence of
The Lambs" and Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber rolled into one.
Even Navas has some redeeming qualities. He is capable of taking good
photographs (even with a super zoom), he has some skills & knowledge
when it comes to competitive sailing, and he seems to have a social
conscience.

Though sometimes he is capable of provoking a head pounding argument.
Especially when he and George Kerby go at each other. At that point I
just move to the side lines as rationality has gone out the window.

The shtick of our favorite troll and the shtick of Navas got old a long
time ago. Nothing ever based on rationality. It's what's destroying
Usenet. Kill-files help, but the trolls still drive normal people away.
It seems to all come from an almost insane jealousy that there are
people that know so much more than they do.

Ah, their insecure and childish displacement-activity warms the cockles of
my heart. I would never expect anything more than this from them when
they've been trapped in being proved 100% wrong again. It's all that they
are ever capable of.

LOL