Eos 7d

[Lindseysa]

I've had my 7d for a few years and have been thinking of buying the 16-35mm f/4L lens.  As the 7d isn't full frame, will this lens work as I've heard that you can only start using it at 20mm.

Also, has anyone any feedback on the Eos 6d?  I take mainly landscape photos and work a lot in low light.  Any help would be appreciated

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Thanks!  It's about time that you showed up and told them that, that the lens behaves like a rectilinear REALLY wide angle lens at the long end.

---

Except it doesn't act like a rectilinear lens at the long end. I just doesn't act like a circular fisheye at the long end.

Images from the-digital-picture.com. Both taken with the Canon EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM Fisheye Lens at 15mm on the same camera. One with the horizon in the center to 'hide the fisheye distortion' the other taken with the horizon in the upper part of the frame to shows how much fisheye distortion there really is.

Claiming the lens doesn't have distortion at the long end APS-C, APS-H, or Full frame is simply a fallacy. The lens makes no claims to be or attempts to act like a rectilinear lens.

---

The only person who made the claim that the lens is rectilinear is you.  I have repeated said that it is a very different lens on a crop body, compared to a full frame.  In fact, I would bet that the above test shots are on a full frame body, which shows a lot more barrel distortion than a crop body would.  Your "proof" is misleading.  Your accusations are baseless.  Your entire argument has become an obsession.  Let it go, man.

---

I quoted you above of claiming it behaves like a rectilinear lens on a crop camera above. Even taking taking a 1.6X crop of second photo is still going to include a portion of distorted horizon. I'm not saying the lens is garbage, or isn't fun to own or use, but, to claim it doesn't have distortion is utter nonsense. 

[Waddizzle]

I quoted you above of claiming it behaves like a rectilinear lens on a crop camera above. Even taking taking a 1.6X crop of second photo is still going to include a portion of distorted horizon. I'm not saying the lens is garbage, or isn't fun to own or use, but, to claim it doesn't have distortion is utter nonsense.

Have a nice day, guy.  I will.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Psst, Tom.  The 8-15mm Zoom Fisheye is a very unique lens.  You do not necessarily have to correct for fisheye distortion in post when you use a crop body, because the lens can correct for it when you capture the image.  The lens can function as an ultra wide zoom, or as a fisheye prime.  I keep trying to tell you that it really isn't your typical zoom lens.

---

I guess I don't see how the lens can correct its own fisheye distortion. I could understand it if you're saying that since fisheye distortion is greatest near the perimeter, a crop camera won't see the worst of it. Then if you position the image carefully, you can toss it to Photoshop to be corrected as though it came from a really crappy rectilinear WA lens. Is that basically it? Or is that what Tom was saying, and we're both missing something?

---

Bob, the lens is your typical ultra-wide angle lens at the long end.  If you level the camera and lens, you can take photos that I think have a minimum of keystoning and distortion at the edges.  Without moving the camera, if you zoom down to the short end, you will get the classic circular fisheye image.  You might say that the lens has variable barrel distortion.

That is what I meant by the lens can correct for it.  I do not know of any other fisheye lens that can zoom, and undistort the image to the point where it looks like a conventional ultra-wide angle lens.  Most lenses, once a fisheye, always a fisheye, and they are primes, not zooms.  How they can make a lens that can go from a circular image to a more conventional image is black magic, to me.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

That is what I meant by the lens can correct for it.  I do not know of any other fisheye lens that can zoom, and undistort the image to the point where it looks like a conventional ultra-wide angle lens.  Most lenses, once a fisheye, always a fisheye, and they are primes, not zooms.  How they can make a lens that can go from a circular image to a more conventional image is black magic, to me.

---

It's Black Magic to you, because it doesn't do what you think it does. It goes from a circular fisheye, to an ultra-wide angle with all the barrel distortion of a fisheye. It is very similar to the Samyang 8mm Fisheye. It gives a full frame image (not a circular fisheye), but, stil has all of the barrel distortion of a fisheye. It is that very distortion that makes those lenses fun to use.

Photo by Tom V. Martin, All Rights Reserved

But, to believe that it would be a superior ultra-wide angle lens on a 7D for general landscape use to a rectilinear lens like the EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is nonsense. With all of that barrel distortion you are very, very, limited in composition if you want to minimize the appearance of any distortion. i.e. horizon has to be through the center (forget about the rule of thirds), and any tall vertical elements towards the sides of the frame will still exhibit some curvature/tilt. 

[jrhoffman75]

http://m.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/2011_Zoom_Fisheye_Lens_article.mshtml

[TTMartin]

---

@jrhoffman75 wrote:
http://m.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/2011_Zoom_Fisheye_Lens_article.mshtml

---

Thank you!!!

That Canon article confirms what I've been saying.

[Lindseysa]

Just want to say thanks for all the suggestions and info posted and have spent the last couple of days researching all the different lenses.  Suffice to say I would like to buy a rectilinear lens and it also has to be able to take filters.

If I can just use you as a sounding board - a few years ago when I completed a photography course, one of the tutors suggested that it was time for me 'to get serious with my photography' which would mean buying a 'L' series lens.  I was, and still am using the  EFS 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens today but when I saw our RAW photos side by side, straight from the camera, I could definately see a difference in the clarity and strength of colour of the background.  Both foregrounds were beautifully sharp but mine deteriorated with distance.  Having gone through a stack of my photos, I tend to use mostly between 15-24mm so buying the 16-35mm f/4 L made sense to me.  I would love the f2.8L but unfortunately living where I do with a volatile exchange rate and exorbitant import duties, it is a question of can I really afford the extra 8000.00ZAR?  For me the expense of buying a lens is a one-off as it should last me a very long time.

In the year or so following, I would like to upgrade my camera and again my dream would be the 5D but it's out of my range so I had thought of the 6D.  Being full frame it would allow me the full use of my new wide angled lens and also have the benefit of a lower ISO which would be great for me with the amount of low light photos I take.

So, am I on the right track with that lens considering landscape photography and low light work is what I love and do you think the 6D is an option or should I save for a few more years and go with the 5D?

[TTMartin]

---

@Lindseysa wrote:

Just want to say thanks for all the suggestions and info posted and have spent the last couple of days researching all the different lenses.  Suffice to say I would like to buy a rectilinear lens and it also has to be able to take filters.

If I can just use you as a sounding board - a few years ago when I completed a photography course, one of the tutors suggested that it was time for me 'to get serious with my photography' which would mean buying a 'L' series lens.  I was, and still am using the  EFS 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens today but when I saw our RAW photos side by side, straight from the camera, I could definately see a difference in the clarity and strength of colour of the background.  Both foregrounds were beautifully sharp but mine deteriorated with distance.  Having gone through a stack of my photos, I tend to use mostly between 15-24mm so buying the 16-35mm f/4 L made sense to me.  I would love the f2.8L but unfortunately living where I do with a volatile exchange rate and exorbitant import duties, it is a question of can I really afford the extra 8000.00ZAR?  For me the expense of buying a lens is a one-off as it should last me a very long time.

In the year or so following, I would like to upgrade my camera and again my dream would be the 5D but it's out of my range so I had thought of the 6D.  Being full frame it would allow me the full use of my new wide angled lens and also have the benefit of a lower ISO which would be great for me with the amount of low light photos I take.

So, am I on the right track with that lens considering landscape photography and low light work is what I love and do you think the 6D is an option or should I save for a few more years and go with the 5D?

---

As a 7D user who owns a 6D and regrets having gotten caught up in the full frame hype, I highly recommend you start with the EF-S 10-18 IS STM and then decide if you need to go full frame at all after that.