«

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

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 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
2-5 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.

"Bowser" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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

"Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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

"LOL!" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:26:14 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-09-04 16:42:41 -0700, Bowser <> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:30:54 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-09-03 16:17:03 -0700, "Peter" <>
>>>> said:
>>>>
>>>>> "Superzooms Still Win" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Typos and spelling errors. Shocking.
>>>
>>> I've never seen any fisheye images from it. Have you?
>>
>>Not one.
>
> Really? You've never seen these two image taken with a superzoom and
> fish-eye adapter before?
>
> 9mm EFL
> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4958733232_ab5e5a8663_b.jpg>
>
> 16mm EFL
> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4148/4958733238_92f1584d67_b.jpg>
>
> They've both been posted no less than a dozen times in the last year, to
> the very threads in which you ****ingly useless trolls were trying to drag
> everything off-topic yet again. Just as you are trying to do now. I guess
> that's what you troll ***** get for poking your own eyes out to retain
> your
> much-sought-after bliss of self-induced ignorance.
>
> Only this time they are ultra-JPG-degraded, instead of the originals that
> show they are pixel-detail sharp and have zero CA right to the edges. Just
> because you all deserve it for so blatantly lying about never having seen
> these and others before.
>
> LOL!
>

Congratulations and thank you for posting!
Those technically and esthetically vomitatious images have just reinforced
my reasons for using my Nikon.

--
Peter

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 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 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.

SMS wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> 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.


Hmmm..."Fluorine" coating, you say? I'd gather that those "L" lenses have
healthy teeth, as a result of such foresight on Canon's part.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>