Canon EF 8-15mm Fisheye Questions

[Phil Rudin 423]

I am not sure that IQ will improve with the Sony Teleconverter separated a bit from the back of the 8-15mm  lens.

For any one looking to make the move to a teleconverter combination with the Canon  8-15mm lenses that does not already own the Sony 1.4X teleconverter consider the cost. The Metabones V cost $399.00US while the Sigma MC-11 and the KenKo 1.4X teleconverter now cost $414.00US.

 

[stillviking 5]

Any reason to use Kenko 1.4x teleconverter and not Canon 1.4x teleconverter? Is the quality worse with any of them?

[ChrisRoss 150]

10 hours ago, stillviking said:

Any reason to use Kenko 1.4x teleconverter and not Canon 1.4x teleconverter? Is the quality worse with any of them?

Yes, the Canon 1.4x doesn't fit as far as I know, it has projection with the front elements needing to fit inside the mount of the lens you are using with it, while the Kenko is flat.

[TimG 62]

The Kenko 1.4 TC has been the go-to TC for a long time - certainly for CFWA use. Folks are generally happy with the image quality.

[Interceptor121 705]

Don't know if this thread is still alive however I own a Canon 8-15mm since a few years and shot it with my GH5 and metabones smart adapter

Now I am using the same lens with metabones smart adapter V for Sony and Kenko teleplus 1.4x HD Pro DGX which is the new version of the 300 Telepro on a Sony A1.

The canon 8-15mm is an extremely sharp lens for a fisheye I frankly doubt a mirrorless version will be optically better but will definitely be smaller

[TmxDiver 39]

3 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Don't know if this thread is still alive however I own a Canon 8-15mm since a few years and shot it with my GH5 and metabones smart adapter

Now I am using the same lens with metabones smart adapter V for Sony and Kenko teleplus 1.4x HD Pro DGX which is the new version of the 300 Telepro on a Sony A1.

The canon 8-15mm is an extremely sharp lens for a fisheye I frankly doubt a mirrorless version will be optically better but will definitely be smaller

I've thought about making the plunge and getting this lens plus the required bits and pieces.

A couple questions:

1) Are you using a Nauticam housing? I think you are.

2) If so, which dome and extension/adapter are you using?

3) Does #2 change when you add the teleconverter (e.g., longer extension)?

Thanks,

- brett

[ChrisRoss 150]

30 minutes ago, TmxDiver said:

I've thought about making the plunge and getting this lens plus the required bits and pieces.

A couple questions:

1) Are you using a Nauticam housing? I think you are.

2) If so, which dome and extension/adapter are you using?

3) Does #2 change when you add the teleconverter (e.g., longer extension)?

Thanks,

- brett

This is all in the port chart, for example the last line in the N85 m43 port chart is for Canon EF lenses with N85-N120 34.7 adapter with 0.71x metabones speedbooster.    You then refer to Canon EF port chart for the ports and extensions.  For m43 it is slightly more complicated as you want to use the metabones smart adapter without the speedbooster optics which is a little thinner and you need to change the extension by this difference.  There is a thread on the 8-15 with m43 cameras on here where Wolfgang details the requirements which include an adapter to allow the Canon EF zoom gear to work with the shorter adapter.

This is the thread :  Canon EF lenses on MFT cameras? - Page 3 - Photography Gear and Technique - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums

The extension changes when adding the 1.4x there is a line in the EF port chart covers the use of the Kenko with this lens.

Sony similarly has a line item to use a Metabones smart adapter with EF lenses and a specific N100-N120 adapter and referring to the EF port chart.

[TmxDiver 39]

24 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

This is all in the port chart, for example the last line in the N85 m43 port chart is for Canon EF lenses with N85-N120 34.7 adapter with 0.71x metabones speedbooster.    You then refer to Canon EF port chart for the ports and extensions.  For m43 it is slightly more complicated as you want to use the metabones smart adapter without the speedbooster optics which is a little thinner and you need to change the extension by this difference.  There is a thread on the 8-15 with m43 cameras on here where Wolfgang details the requirements which include an adapter to allow the Canon EF zoom gear to work with the shorter adapter.

This is the thread :  Canon EF lenses on MFT cameras? - Page 3 - Photography Gear and Technique - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums

The extension changes when adding the 1.4x there is a line in the EF port chart covers the use of the Kenko with this lens.

Sony similarly has a line item to use a Metabones smart adapter with EF lenses and a specific N100-N120 adapter and referring to the EF port chart.

Yep, I have the port charts downloaded on my system.

I actually hadn't noticed the part about the extension with the Kenko so thanks for that. The primary reason I was asking about the dome is that:

1) Backscatter lists multiple different dome choices in their "port selector" (which doesn't seem to be working for me right now)

2) Alex seems to have a very large dome for the 8-15 Fisheye in his recent post on the other thread about the Sony a7rV.

Given that people seem to recommend and/or use different size domes with the 8-15 FE, I was curious what he was using.

- brett

[ChrisRoss 150]

5 hours ago, TmxDiver said:

Yep, I have the port charts downloaded on my system.

I actually hadn't noticed the part about the extension with the Kenko so thanks for that. The primary reason I was asking about the dome is that:

1) Backscatter lists multiple different dome choices in their "port selector" (which doesn't seem to be working for me right now)

2) Alex seems to have a very large dome for the 8-15 Fisheye in his recent post on the other thread about the Sony a7rV.

Given that people seem to recommend and/or use different size domes with the 8-15 FE, I was curious what he was using.

- brett

I think the port size is more a function of what you are doing, if you already have a big dome, the 8-15 also works there and has a small quality advantage in the corners perhaps.  But if you look at the Nauticam port chart they say the 140mm dome is most optimised and the smaller domes facilitate you getting in closer.  Then of course the here is the travel issue.  

[Interceptor121 705]

8 hours ago, TmxDiver said:

I've thought about making the plunge and getting this lens plus the required bits and pieces.
A couple questions:
1) Are you using a Nauticam housing? I think you are.
2) If so, which dome and extension/adapter are you using?
3) Does #2 change when you add the teleconverter (e.g., longer extension)?
Thanks,
- brett

1. Yes
2. 140mm with 30mm extension + N100 to N120 adapter (I have already N120 domes and ports)
3. Add 20mm plus dedicated focus gear


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited January 19 by Interceptor121

[Architeuthis 133]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:34 PM, Phil Rudin said:

I now have the KenKo 1.4X Teleconverter in house to try with the Canon 8-15mm full frame fisheye. The images are taken with the Sony A7R IV and are arranged as follows.

#1-8mm without lens hood

#2-At 15mm

With the 1.4X teleconverter you get a zoom through range from 14mm to 21mm cropped. Without the Teleconverter you get 8mm circular and 14 to 15mm without vignette and/or top and bottom crop.

#3-Tele set at 8mm with hood, notice the vignetting and clipping of the image at top and bottom.

#4-Tele with crop 14mm.

#5-Tele with crop 16mm

#6-Tele with crop 21mm 

 

 

#1.: I am just curious, whether you had a chance to test the 1.4x converter on FF UW and what you say about IQ. Does IQ suffer too much (I do not find that IQ suffers when using the Canon 8-15mm with Kenko 1.4x, but this is on the small MFT sensor of Oly EM1II)?

#2.: Can one notice the expected increase in IQ when using the 230mm dome over the 140mm dome, or is the 230mm dome just better for splits (As far as I remember Nauticam marks the 140mm dome with * in their portcharts, indicating that this is, optically, the best solution)?

#3.: Maybe there is a difference in IQ between the Kenko TC and the native (expensive but high quality) Sony-E or Canon-R TCs (it seems the protrusion into the lens does not matter, when one uses the appropriate EF-mount adapter)? It would be interesting in case somebody has tested this...

 

Wolfgang

Edited January 19 by Architeuthis

[Interceptor121 705]

13 minutes ago, Architeuthis said:

#1.: I am just curious, whether you had a chance to test the 1.4x converter on FF UW and what you say about IQ. Does IQ suffer too much (I do not find that IQ suffers when using the Canon 8-15mm with Kenko 1.4x, but this is on the small MFT sensor of Oly EM1II)?

#2.: Can one notice the expected increase in IQ when using the 230mm dome over the 140mm dome, or is the 230mm dome just better for splits (As far as I remember Nauticam marks the 140mm dome with * in their portcharts, indicating that this is, optically, the best solution)?

#3.: Maybe there is a difference in IQ between the Kenko TC and the native (expensive but high quality) Sony-E or Canon-R TCs (it seems the protrusion into the lens does not matter, when one uses the appropriate EF-mount adapter)? It would be interesting in case somebody has tested this...

 

Wolfgang

My view

1. All teleconverter deteriorate IQ but 1.4x is much better than APSC crop

2. A bigger dome is always better however it would only make sense if you want to use it for another rectilinear lens as you will need a smaller dome for close up shots

3. I would not use a TC connected to the camera then an adapter then a lens as those adapters sometimes can freeze the camera however it looks like the Sony path works fine

[TmxDiver 39]

8 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

1. Yes
2. 140mm with 30mm extension + N100 to N120 adapter (I have already N120 domes and ports)
3. Add 20mm plus dedicated focus gear


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perfect, thanks.

Everybody thinks rebreathers are expensive -- until they start getting deep into underwater photography. The combination is absurd!

- brett

[TimG 62]

LOL, a buddy of mine here in Sint Maarten combined u/w photog AND rebreathers.

I could see the reason but, mercy, the amount of gear, the space he needed on the boat - and the care to set up and monitor was incredible.

[Interceptor121 705]

2 minutes ago, TmxDiver said:

Perfect, thanks.

Everybody thinks rebreathers are expensive -- until they start getting deep into underwater photography. The combination is absurd!

- brett

I already committed 80% to the N120 system even shooting MFT the only native port I still use is the macro so that is something I will need to buy however I am not buying any dome or wet lens / water contact optic. I have also decided that priority is portability not absolute performance which is for sure a compromise solution but my rig for video is already 7 kg and am not plannnig to get to 10kg

[TmxDiver 39]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

LOL, a buddy of mine here in Sint Maarten combined u/w photog AND rebreathers.

I could see the reason but, mercy, the amount of gear, the space he needed on the boat - and the care to set up and monitor was incredible.

Yep - for sure -- not to mention getting all the gear to wherever you are going (along with drysuits, "regular" scuba gear, etc.).

However, for diving deep wrecks, it is the "right" way to do it. OC is just too limiting IMHO.

- brett

[TimG 62]

55 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

I have also decided that priority is portability not absolute performance which is for sure a compromise solution

I think you make a good point there. You can add more and more pixels and better and better "image quality". But to what end?

For many of us (most of us?) looking at an image on screen does not require tons of pixels or tons of IQ. And even for commercial usage, as Alex M pointed out recently, magazine cover images need to be interesting images not megapixels. I'm still selling images taken on a Nikon Coolpix 5000. No-one has muttered about the lack of pixels or the dodgy IQ. 

Maybe if you want to create massive prints and have the house walls to handle them, then fair enough. Otherwise, what is the point? As I've written here before, we are seduced by camera manufacturer marketing. 

Moving gear around now is such a headache with airline limitations. Seems to me being able to transport gear to dive locations is now a bigger issue than having loads of megapixels and the sharpest optics.

Sorry this is all Off Topic but, hey..... 

And I'll now shut up......

 

[Interceptor121 705]

28 minutes ago, TimG said:

I think you make a good point there. You can add more and more pixels and better and better "image quality". But to what end?

For many of us (most of us?) looking at an image on screen does not require tons of pixels or tons of IQ. And even for commercial usage, as Alex M pointed out recently, magazine cover images need to be interesting images not megapixels. I'm still selling images taken on a Nikon Coolpix 5000. No-one has muttered about the lack of pixels or the dodgy IQ. 

Maybe if you want to create massive prints and have the house walls to handle them, then fair enough. Otherwise, what is the point? As I've written here before, we are seduced by camera manufacturer marketing. 

Moving gear around now is such a headache with airline limitations. Seems to me being able to transport gear to dive locations is now a bigger issue than having loads of megapixels and the sharpest optics.

Sorry this is all Off Topic but, hey..... 

And I'll now shut up......

 

Going back in topic the Canon 8-15 is a superb lens. It is a bit longer than what a mirrorless lens would be however to get that quality you need glass

I am not sure Sony will do a fisheye and I am even less sure it will perform better that the 8-15 which is literally laser sharp

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I find the AF of the 8-15mm much more hunty than the 28-60mm with the WWL/WACP. Surely because of the adaptor. And as such I've not considered it when evaluating the AF of the Sonys I have tried. It works fine - but the AF is definitely prone to hunting, especially with the smaller dome. I know that fisheye AF performance is rarely a deal breaker. And optically, I am very happy with the Canon lens at 61MP. 

I do think if Sony makes a native fisheye then it might be a short barrel length lens. Which would mean that there won't be space for the N100-N120 converter, currently needed for Nauticam's best domes the 140 and 230mm. And if it is really short could mean some specially designed domes. This is all wild speculation. But it is something to ponder, especially if the 8-15mm is seen a temporary solution. 

[stillviking 5]

Anyone with full-resolution samples U/W with 8-15 mm with distortion correction on LR ON to be rectilinear? Thanks :)!

[ChrisRoss 150]

7 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Going back in topic the Canon 8-15 is a superb lens. It is a bit longer than what a mirrorless lens would be however to get that quality you need glass

I am not sure Sony will do a fisheye and I am even less sure it will perform better that the 8-15 which is literally laser sharp

I agree I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting and it's hard to imagine it being significantly better than the Canon lens.  

[Tom_Kline 137]

2 hours ago, stillviking said:

Anyone with full-resolution samples U/W with 8-15 mm with distortion correction on LR ON to be rectilinear? Thanks :)!

Reduced IQ noticeable even at web rez. Note also the significant crop. It will be a s***storm if LR does not allow one to disable this correction for forthcoming fisheye lenses.

[Interceptor121 705]

3 hours ago, Alex_Mustard said:

I find the AF of the 8-15mm much more hunty than the 28-60mm with the WWL/WACP. Surely because of the adaptor. And as such I've not considered it when evaluating the AF of the Sonys I have tried. It works fine - but the AF is definitely prone to hunting, especially with the smaller dome. I know that fisheye AF performance is rarely a deal breaker. And optically, I am very happy with the Canon lens at 61MP. 

I do think if Sony makes a native fisheye then it might be a short barrel length lens. Which would mean that there won't be space for the N100-N120 converter, currently needed for Nauticam's best domes the 140 and 230mm. And if it is really short could mean some specially designed domes. This is all wild speculation. But it is something to ponder, especially if the 8-15mm is seen a temporary solution. 

Which adapter are you using? They are not all the same in fact

The AF on my A1 is super snappy as it was on my GH5. Sure I have not taken the Sony underwater but I would be surprised by any hunting

[Interceptor121 705]

3 hours ago, stillviking said:

Anyone with full-resolution samples U/W with 8-15 mm with distortion correction on LR ON to be rectilinear? Thanks :)!

It is not a good idea as obviously corners are very low resolution and the amount of crop becomes considerable

[Alex_Mustard 0]

9 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Which adapter are you using? They are not all the same in fact

The AF on my A1 is super snappy as it was on my GH5. Sure I have not taken the Sony underwater but I would be surprised by any hunting

I have a Metabones adaptor. I have not tried others.

I only have 3 lenses with the Sony A7RV I have here. The 28-60mm with the WWL/WACP definitely focuses much better than my reference Nikon 28-70mm with WACP on D850. The 90mm is much better at tracking fish than the Nikon 105mm. Although the 90mm is less impressive at smaller macro and looses its advantage over the 105mm/D850 combo.

However, the 8-15mm Canon/Metabones does not focus as well as the Nikon 8-15mm on D850. When both are confident, they both snap onto the subject so instantly that there is not significant difference between them and no real point in commenting on the performance as even if one was better it would not really be worth commenting on. However, with strongly backlit, monochromatic, strange shaped subjects (as most wide angle foregrounds look to a camera underwater) the 8-15mm Canon will hunt at times. This is much more prevalent with a smaller dome port. The hunting is common enough for me to want to comment on. But while it has slowed me down shooting, I've not missed any shots. The best solution is to switch to back button/thumb focus (Focus With Shutter Off in Sony-speak) with this lens.

So overall, I find the A7RV to be the best autofocusing underwater cameras I have used. It is logical to expect the A1 to be better. But it also clearly has areas of strength, and areas of weakness. The latter really a result of Sony's poor lens availability for underwater shooting, which hopefully will be redressed. 

Alex