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

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, 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?

For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to horizon
9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain vistas,
or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily take
2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where you
wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing to
my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
always so far behind though.

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:13:06 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, 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?

For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to horizon
9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain vistas,
or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily take
2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where you
wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing to
my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
always so far behind though.

Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.

On 2010-09-03 09:57:57 -0700, Bowser said:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:13:06 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, 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?

For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to horizon
9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain vistas,
or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily take
2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where you
wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing to
my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
always so far behind though.

Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.

Good luck with that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:10:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-09-03 09:57:57 -0700, Bowser said:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:13:06 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, 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?

For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to horizon
9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain vistas,
or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily take
2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where you
wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing to
my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
always so far behind though.

Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.

Good luck with that.

Did it before it was even asked. Mostly because if someone had asked then I
wouldn't have posted any. I don't do troll's-requests. But this new example
wasn't really necessary as I had posted many excellent examples before in
the past.

Off-topic TROLL MUCH? You useless attention-starved ****.

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:13:06 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, 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?

For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to
horizon
9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain
vistas,
or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily
take
2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where
you
wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing
to
my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
always so far behind though.

Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.


Don't hold your breath.

--
Peter

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 14:22:51 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:10:48 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-09-03 09:57:57 -0700, Bowser said:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:13:06 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, 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?

For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to horizon
9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain vistas,
or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily take
2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where you
wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing to
my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
always so far behind though.

Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.

Good luck with that.

Did it before it was even asked. Mostly because if someone had asked then I
wouldn't have posted any. I don't do troll's-requests. But this new example
wasn't really necessary as I had posted many excellent examples before in
the past.


I missed those samples. Can you post the link?

On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 17:26:00 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Bowser" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 17:13:06 -0500, Superzooms Still Win
wrote:

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 18:54:29 +0100, 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?

For the same reason that I use an excellent (zero CA) fish-eye adapter on
my superzoom cameras to seamlessly zoom from 9mm-36mm. For one simple
example, when shooting aurora. I can instantly go from a horizon to
horizon
9mm full-sky inventory to a more moderate 16mm wide-angle, to more closely
frame some of the important or interesting and colorful areas of the
auroral activity. Or documenting meteors during strong storms. It's also
great for capturing, and properly framing, sunset/rise and mountain
vistas,
or wide sweeps of colors in fall-foliage. Some sunrise/sets can easily
take
2-3 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. Macro photography where
you
wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus) with wide washes of
background colors and hues.There are many uses, once you use one. This is
generally not something the typical pretend-photographer troll can imagine
in their mind unless they've actually put one to use. The other added
advantage is that this is all available for under $100 at f/2.0 or f/2.4.
(Depending on which superzoom camera the fish-eye adapter is used on. It
does not detract from the camera's own original widest aperture.) That's a
$1,300 savings with a 2-stop advantage. Not to mention the extra seamless
non-vignetted zoom range of 16mm-36mm that's not covered by this $1,400
8-15mm lens. Oh, one other thing. I won't be getting my cameras' sensors
dirty nor any condensation on the mirror and focusing-screen by changing
to
my fish-eye and super-wide-angle range. Nor will my camera have to make
special auto-focusing allowances to prevent front/back focusing problems
inherent in all phase-focusing cameras.

I suspect that DSLR owners will finally learn how a lens of this range can
be put to good use. Like I've been using regularly for all manner of
subjects for the last 9 years. Better late than never, I guess. They're
always so far behind though.

Sounds interesting. Please post some samples.


Don't hold your breath.

I'm not. Just calling out an imbeclie to embarass themselves further
by offering silly excuses as to why it won't post samples. It's
claimed that it's done it already, so I've asked it for a link.

Still not holding my breath.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:20:29 -0400, Bowser wrote:


I'm not. Just calling out an imbeclie to embarass themselves further
by offering silly excuses as to why it won't post samples. It's
claimed that it's done it already, so I've asked it for a link.

Still not holding my breath.

Still not reading all the posts either, I see. Let me know when you spot
that omelet covering your face.

I.e. "an imbeclie to embarass themselves further".

BTW, pre-existing photo-link posts aside: that's "imbecile" and
"embarrass", not your imbecilic "imbeclie" and "embarass")

3 birds with one stone this time. Do you always play at being a total moron
this much? Nah, you don't play at it. You ARE it. You have no choice in the
matter.

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:20:29 -0400, Bowser wrote:


I'm not. Just calling out an imbeclie to embarass themselves further
by offering silly excuses as to why it won't post samples. It's
claimed that it's done it already, so I've asked it for a link.

Still not holding my breath.

Still not reading all the posts either, I see. Let me know when you spot
that omelet covering your face.

I.e. "an imbeclie to embarass themselves further".



Bowser used the expression as it should be used where, as here the object
suffers from multiple personality disorder.

--
Peter

On 2010-09-03 16:17:03 -0700, "Peter" said:

"Superzooms Still Win" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:20:29 -0400, Bowser wrote:


I'm not. Just calling out an imbeclie to embarass themselves further
by offering silly excuses as to why it won't post samples. It's
claimed that it's done it already, so I've asked it for a link.

Still not holding my breath.

Still not reading all the posts either, I see. Let me know when you spot
that omelet covering your face.

I.e. "an imbeclie to embarass themselves further".



Bowser used the expression as it should be used where, as here the
object suffers from multiple personality disorder.

I believe he ( Der Troll) is referring to the two spelling errors, the
transposed "i & l" in "imbecile" and the single "r" in "embarrassed."
Just his version of net-coppery.

As far as any photographs he has posted, nothing could be remotely
described as good, even if they did not suffer from his alleged
purposed jpeg degradation.
That includes his latest "owl" shot, which may, or may not be his. He
has never given any proof that he ever took any of the photographs he
has linked to.

--
Regards,

Savageduck