Sigma 15mm f/1.4 DG DN Art Review: Wide, Weird, Weighty, and Wonderful! 

I agree but considering how large this lens is, I don't think there is a housing currently that could handle it?

Nope. by the time you defish it then crop the stretch corners, the fov will effectively be 18-20mm and the stretched corners wil look very soft indeed.

I've read forum posts from underwater photographers suggesting otherwise. The size and weight are awkward, but it also has an optical problem (or at least a tradeoff that works against that use case). Minimum focus distance is really weak, and close-up performance is poor. Sure, f/1.4 sounds great, but the rest of the package doesn't really work.

@@thebitterfig9903 The minimum focus distance is indeed really poor for a fisheye, especially for underwater usage, that is very true and by far the biggest weakness for the use underwater. Obviously F1.4 is useless underwater, but nobody forces you to use that, due to corner sharpness it is likely it will be put at something like f8 or more (seems it doesn't stop down beyond f16, that isn't great either, but depth of field isn't an issue, especially as you can't focus extremely close)

@@nordic5490 Why the hell would you want to defish it?

Second a request for the Panasonic 28-200, the images I'm seeing from it are actually really impressive.

Working on it right now!

@@geoffreybassett6741good seeing a second lens of this range (after Tamron) hope Sony/Sigma or Samyang also make their version

It would be really impractical trying to get it that size lens it's impractical use because of its size

This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide. I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide. I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once. I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively. F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with. I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed. Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.

can't be assed to read this... read you have to crop to get rid of the fisheye... on a fisheye lens and knew you have no idea what you're talking about... plenty of ultra wide glass out there that's not fisheye lenses@@nordic5490

I took lots of cool pictures with my old Olympus 8mm fisheye. They have a particular look which works well for somethings and not as well for others. If you don't understand the appeal of fisheye lenses, then don't get one. Or maybe you just haven't realized yet how cool they are.

@@xintophotography9848 I have several fisheyes, for m4/3, aps-c and full frame, and even modified the canon 10-22 to shoot circular images on a full frame body, so nothing new there, but from 14-15 mm, may as well apply an effect in post to the 14 image, the one in a thousand times you need warped perspective

My bad. - Jordan

@@PetaPixel 😂

On sony 4k60 crop with stabilisation it's like a 28mm right?

I wouldn't be able to hold it at arms length for very long.

@@mipmipmipmipmip it's pretty hard to do FoV equivalents with a diagonal fisheye. Technically it should be 22.5mm.

@@mipmipmipmipmipwhich Sony? a7iv 4k60 crop would turn this 15mm Sigma into 22.5mm

Not at the moment by the info on the website. wish it was

Nope l, canon is still closed off to third party AF lenses

This RF shooter doesn't want it. I have better RF lenses This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide. I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide. I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once. I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively. F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with. I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed. Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.

Available for E and L mounts.

We need literally any FF lenses from sigma tbh

Sad RF noises

I suppose the angle of vision, if it is at 16mm it needs to have big glasses to let the angle “fit inside it” otherwise you will have 16mm but only see the housing all over the borders of the images 🤷‍♂️

I guess handling distortion requires a lot of glass.

Close focus distance isn't good enough, the dome housing disqualifies this lens for such use as you need something that can be right up against the front dome for it to work. Underwater photographers on water.pixel wished it weren't this way, but alas.

We have! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ej7paqU42FU.htmlsi=O-mBJZ5LmB4gN1pC

Check again!

@PetaPixel perfect! Haha thanks guys for releasing an episode just for me 😄

This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide. I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide. I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once. I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively. F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with. I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed. Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.

@@nordic5490 What an absurd comment. You don't buy this lens to defish it. Sigma's 14/1.4 is right there if you want rectilinear. You buy this because you want a fisheye's optical characteristics. I'm not really much of a fisheye shooter, but sometimes it's fun to take out my Dad's old Rokkor X 16mm. The distortion isn't something to be "dealt with" in post but something to incorporate during composition. It doesn't work for you? Fine. No problem with that. We all have our stylistic preferences. Some folks like oil pastels, some folks like watercolors, some folks like charcoals. It doesn't make someone a worse photographer if they don't gel with these kinds of lenses. But it does make someone a worse member of the community if they can't grok that some folks want this lens for what it is, not to convert into something that it isn't.

I guess Tamron has a deal with Nikon, holding off Sigma. Similarly there's no Tamron L-mount.

@@mipmipmipmipmip I've been wondering that myself. If there is some secret exclusivity between OEM's and third parties? Which would be even wackier then this lens. The elephant in the room for Nikon has been those 2.8 zooms using Tamron designs. But a manufacturer stating that you will be my only supported major 3rd party? Laowa does have Nikon Z, but perhaps not 'official official' support at Nikon?

Nope. by the time you defish it then crop the stretch corners, the fov will effectively be 18-20mm and the stretched corners wil look very soft indeed.

Neither is true. This is a 15mm fisheye lens. What that means is that after 'defishing' (stretching the corners) and cropping to make the image 'rectalinear', the remaining field of view is the same as a 18mm or 20mm lens. That is not ultra wide. I shoot with a Canon RF 10mm rectilinear lens on y R5,, and let me assure you, there is nothing like the view of a 10mm rectiliear lens. You can always crop in, but you cannot crop wide. I have about a dozen lenses with focal length of less than 16mm, inc several 8mm fisheyes. Sure, a 8mm circular fisheye on a full frame body is fun for a very few sbots only. I have shot full sky milkyway timelapes with the 8mm pointing upwards, and the circular frame 180° fov covers horizon to horizon. But, only once. I own 10, 12 and 14mm rectiliear lenses - all ok, but the image quality of the RF 10-20mm rectilinear is superb, and you just cannot beat the look of 10mm. Yup, it is F4, meas you also need to learn how to use it effectively. F1.4 sounds good ? But... probably not needed unless you were shooting video hand held of glow worms in a cave, and then the fisheye distortion would be very difficult to deal with. I own 4 fisheyes and would not buy another. It is not worth it - by the time you defish the image you end up with a much narrower fov, and the stretched corners will look very soft indeed. Sonys small 46mm mount will vignette the image from a 10 or 11mm rectiliear lens. Both Canon and Nikon run much larger 52mm mounts.

@@nordic5490 I don't know I'm not thinking that too hard into it. The 1.4 aperture will at least allow for some creativity or so. I've been shooting at 10 mm crop/16 mm ff for 12 years now. But early on I used to rent the Canon 8 to 14 fisheye and yes you're not going to use it all the time but I still really enjoy the images that I took with it. It was a 15 mm F4 then I probably wouldn't care. For wide lenses the small aperture could probably do some interesting stuff that's the thing I'm caring about the most. Otherwise for my ultra wides I'm just doing landscapes but with a 1.4 I'm wondering what else I can do with something so wide and a little bit circular.

"Only 15mm?"

​@@mipmipmipmipmipIt's the girth that counts

​@@POVwithRC or ... it's not the focal length that matters, it's how you use its aperture

What happened to „that’s what she said“?

​@@andreaskaphengst8121What can I say, she's shallow. We are a good fit.

Dave, when you picked up that Largemouth Bass I'm sure you didn't actually cry either, but you probably said to everyone "Holy hell that's a big fish! Look at that boys!" Nothing wrong with saying something is what it is.

​@@niccollsvideo weren't there some pro bass fishers even adding metal balls to increase the weight 😂

@lsvideo I was mad it was not a 9 pound bass actually :)

To be honest, it is unusable. At least f2.8 if you're focusing close.