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

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Bruce, Sep 2, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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/profe...lineup/lens_uw_pro/ef_8_15mm_f_4l_fisheye_usm
     
    Bruce, Sep 2, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 2, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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
    2-5 frames done at 16mm and then pano-stitched. For example, this sunset
    shot with four 16mm frames in portrait orientation and stitched.
    <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/4952676314_9a6cfb0a6a_z.jpg> (N.E.
    Quetico Nat. Park) Some cropping after-stitching for better composition. Or
    macro photography where you wish to frame a deep subject (now all in focus)
    with wide washes of background 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.
     
    Superzooms Still Win, Sep 2, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Peter Guest


    Don't hold your breath.
     
    Peter, Sep 3, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Peter Guest


    Bowser used the expression as it should be used where, as here the object
    suffers from multiple personality disorder.
     
    Peter, Sep 4, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    Congratulations and thank you for posting!
    Those technically and esthetically vomitatious images have just reinforced
    my reasons for using my Nikon.
     
    Peter, Sep 5, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 5, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    Is he Rod Speed and John Navas rolled into one?
     
    SMS, Sep 5, 2010
    #8
  9. Bruce

    SMS Guest

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

    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.
     
    SMS, Sep 5, 2010
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Martin Brown Guest

    Unfortunately it does. But this only proves that Canons ad copywriters
    are completely clueless about chemistry. Flourine can attack glass and
    would damage the surface finish - lens coatings are usually thin layers
    of inorganic fluorides. Most commonly MgF2 with traces of other stuff -
    it is exceptionally insoluble.

    Elemental fluorine is far too reactive to survive in the environment -
    it will oxidise atmospheric oxygen. It is possible they are using one of
    a new generation of fluoropolymers on this lens but it is inconceivable
    that there is any free fluorine on the lens surface!
    In this particular case he has a point though. It is the same mistake as
    the silicon (sic) breast implants. Right element wrong chemistry.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Sep 6, 2010
    #10
  11. Probably not. The average reader is not very intelligent. You and the SMS
    troll's average IQs added together probably wouldn't amount to 100. Neither
    of you spotted it. I spotted it just from the crap that you fuckingly
    stupid trolls relentlessly copy and paste from web-pages or text from other
    equally stupid trolls on the net, trying to act like you might know
    something. The best that any of you can muster is, "Oh, this sounds like
    really smart and impressive stuff! I better copy it and post it somewhere
    so people will think I'm smart too! Let's see, what was that keyboard
    shortcut again? Oh, yeah. CTRL-C. Now we open our newsreader thingy and
    hit, ... ummm... damn, was that CTRL-B? NO WAIT! I remember now. It's
    CTRL-V! Oh-BOY! I remembered! I remembered!" How often do you mumble that
    to yourself? Probably never. You have to use the slower and dumbed-down
    "user friendly" context-menu options designed with idiots like you in mind.

    Now do you understand why all you troll-cunts always appear to be nothing
    but total idiots? Because you ARE total idiots.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Sep 6, 2010
    #11
  12. Bruce

    Peter Guest

    Strange you mention that. Some of his postngs have a erie similarity to a
    recent interview with Charles Manson.
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #12
  13. Bruce

    Peter Guest


    I think its based more on some type of sick desire to screw things up and/or
    a bid for attention. I'm sure someone with a decent amount of psychological
    training could give us a better explanation.
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Peter Guest


    Don't be so quick to concede a point.

    http://www.cerac.com/pubs/proddata/thf4.htm
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Peter Guest


    Some simple research says that there are fluoride compound that are used as
    gaseous optical coatings.
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Martin Brown Guest

    That is *exactly* the point. inorganic *fluoride* optical coatings are
    common and have been since it was possible to do reliable vapour phase
    deposition. There are even a handful of exotic APO lenses and somewhat
    more telescopes with one element made out of single crystal CaF2.

    But the critical point is that it is *NOT* elemental fluorine as their
    crazy advertising copy claims. Right element but the wrong chemistry.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Sep 6, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    On 9/6/2010 7:56 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

    Nowhere do they claim "elemental fluorine." It's pretty clear what they
    mean. They've been using "Fluorine" coatings on their BWLs for years.
     
    SMS, Sep 6, 2010
    #17
  18. Bruce

    SMS Guest

    LOL. You'll be dead before that happens.
     
    SMS, Sep 6, 2010
    #18
  19. MgF2 is the material usually used in single-layer coatings. Modern
    multilayer coatings uses a variety of oxides, including SiOx (where 0 < x < 2),
    TiO2, ZrO2, HfO2, Y2O3, Al2O3, and Ta2O5


    It's probably a fluoropolymer. However, I distrust those to last forever.

    Fluorine doesn't oxidize oxygen at ambient pressure and temperature. I've used
    a lot of the stuff ... I own part of the long-expired patent for making
    fluoropolymer coatings using molecular fluorine.

    Indeed! "Silicones" don't exist except in the gas phase. They
    polymerize much more rapidly than ketones to make polysiloxanes.

    When an undergrad I did a lots of stuff with reactions of SiF2 ...
    very interesting stuff. It polymerizes to the Si analog of Teflon,
    which has the same physical properties as Teflon, but it catches fire
    in air.

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Sep 6, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Peter Guest


    Perhaps I misread, but I did not se a reference to elemental fluorine in the
    original copy.
    It is accepted that copywriters do take liberties. Nobody should take
    advertisement claims, or white papers literally. Both are far from peer
    reviewed documents.
     
    Peter, Sep 6, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.