New Workshop: Headshot Photography 101

Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 Full-Frame Fisheye Lens Review | An Urbex & Extreme Adventure Photography Lens

January 30th 2015 11:30 AM

It’s time to review another lens that I’ve recently been very excited about!  The Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye (B&H, ~$499 – you support SLR Lounge when you shop via these links!)  is a full-frame lens that offers an even wider angle of view than previous fisheye lenses.  Despite being listed as a 180 degree diagonal fisheye lens, it somehow manages to squeeze in more angle of view both horizontally and vertically compared to other fisheye lenses, and it utterly destroys non-fisheye lenses as wide as 14mm,  But don’t take my word for it, watch the video review below and then keep scrolling to see more sample images!

Who Should Buy This Lens, And What Is Its Competition?

One category of discussion that I like to add to all my reviews is, “Who is this lens made for, and what other lenses should you consider?”

Simply put, I like to review equipment that is designed for the types of things I like to do. This is why you will probably never see me write a one-star or two-star review, by the way. If I hate a camera or lens that much, I wouldn’t review it in the first place.

25-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-reviewNikon D750, Rokinon 12mm f/2.8
1/90 sec @ f/16 & ISO 100
SLR Lounge Preset System

With that said, the Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye is a good choice for anyone who is into the following:

Urbex / Caving Photographers

If you like shooting Urbex, (urban exploration) or caving, or anything along these lines, then you’ll love the Rokinon for two reasons: 1.) It’s sharp as heck, and 2.) It doesn’t cost $1500-$3000.  I am NOT condoning trespassing, or any kind of dangerous activity, however if you were to engage in such things, the sorrow of getting your camera confiscated, lost, or destroyed is directly related to its cost.  I’m just sayin’…

The only other lenses that get this wide, without breaking your bank, are the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 (over a stop slower, and $950) and the Sigma 8-16 f/4.5-5.6 ($700), both of which are not nearly as sharp, and so distorted that they might as well be fisheyes.

27-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-reviewNikon D750, Rokinon 12mm f/2.8, FotoPro C5C tripod
1/20 sec @ f/13 & ISO 100
SLR Lounge Preset System V6

17-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-reviewNikon D5300, Rokinon 12mm f/2.8, FotoPro C5i Tripod
~275 layered 30 sec. exposures @ f/2.8 & ISO 100

Astro-Landscape Photographers

Simply put, for astro-landscape photographers, field curvature is a huge issue among almost every lens wider than 24mm. This Rokinon 12mm is one of the very few lenses in the 12-14mm range, period, and it is even more unique in having very good (low) field curvature. It’s not perfect, but at least it’s better than most of the other options out there! In fact, for my own astro-landscape photography, I’m probably going to sell my Rokinon 14mm 2.8 to help pay for this new 12mm.

Other lenses to consider in this range might include the Nikon 14-24 2.8, or the Rokinon 14mm 2.8, or the Tokina 16-28mm 2.8, or if you’re on a crop sensor, the Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8, Rokinon 10mm 2.8, or the Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 fisheye. Sigma also makes a couple fisheye lenses, however I haven’t had a chance to review them yet.

Extreme Action Sports / Journalism Photographers

If you find yourself frequently quoting Robert Capa, saying “if your photographs aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough,” then this is the lens for you.  It is significantly wider than a 14mm lens, even when de-fisheye’d, and as a bonus similar to the risk-taking Urbex photographers, if you set this up on your remote camera and it gets taken out in a mountain bike / race car etc. accident, (or destroyed in a war zone?), you can at least remind yourself that it was one of the cheapest options on the market.

Other lenses to consider for this type of work might include a Rokinon or Sigma crop-sensor fisheye if you have a fast crop-sensor camera like the Canon 7D mk2 or the Pentax K-3.

24-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review 22-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review

Architectural / Interior / Real-Estate Photographers

If you find yourself in more “tame” shooting environments, but still needing extreme wide angles and the absolute best sharpness, this is a great lens to consider for interior photography and general architecture.  At 12mm, this lens’ only real competition is the uber-expensive Canon 8-15mm f/4 fisheye zoom, ($1350) and the mythical, un-announced Canon 11-24mm f/4 non-fisheye, which is rumored to cost $3,000 and may not even actually exist.

Then again, it’s not like real-estate photographers are magically rolling in the dough, so if you’re on a budget, you’re back to square one.

15-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review 16-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review

04-performance-5-stars

The one aspect of this lens that I don’t hesitate to give a perfect score is its performance.  Simply put, it is sharp, sharp, sharp! Not only that, but its images have plenty more to offer that few other fisheye lenses do: It has extremely low field curvature, in fact, its field curvature is almost perfectly flat all the way to the extreme corners, both at close distances and at infinity.  By comparison, the Nikon 16mm f/2.8 fisheye is clearly front-focused by the rule of thirds mark, and worthlessly out of focus by the corners.  Even if you focus past infinity on the Nikon, your extreme corners will never be sharp unless you stop down all the way to f/8 or f/11.

The Rokinon 12mm also has extremely low coma, decently low vignetting, nice sunstars, and decently low flare “dots.”

04-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review

750_0087-Edit 750_0407-Edit 750_9663

rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review-sharpness-center-crop rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review-sharpness-off-center-crop

13-design-4-stars

There’s only one thing I didn’t like about the Rokinon 12mm’s design, and that is that the hood is removable.  This effectively means that almost the entire body of the lens is a spinning part, which makes the lens extremely difficult to mount or unmount from your camera, depending on if you shoot Nikon or Canon.  I know that the Canon lens mount is a lot smoother in operation, but my Nikon DSLR bodies have always been a bit less of a smooth glide and this means you have to crank the focus ring all the way to one end so you can use it to lock the lens in place.

I would consider this design “flaw” to merit a two or three star rating, except for the fact that the removable hood does make that front element so darn easy to clean.  Anyone who has had to clean the front element of a bulbous, fixed-hood lens will know what I’m talking about. So all in all, this may be a non-issue for Canon users who can still mount / unmount the lens by gripping the hood, (since it does lock into place quite tightly) and for those Nikon users who have to be careful not to drop the lens while mounting it, the benefit of easy cleaning is worth the drawback in my opinion.

08-features-4-stars

This is a manual focus fisheye lens, so as far as “features” are concerned, you might think of it as a one-trick pony that few photographers should consider.  However, as far as both fisheye and non-fisheye ultra-wide lenses are concerned, the Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 offers one thing that few others offer: an incredibly wide field of view, with incredible image quality. That, as a feature, means a lot.

08-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-reviewRokinon 14mm

10-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-reviewNikon 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye, de-fisheye’d using Fisheye Hemi

09-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-reviewRokinon 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye, de-fisheye’d using Fisheye Hemi

I’ll give this lens four stars, since it is a hands-down winner in the range of ultra-wide primes.  Considering that it’s such a specialty lens, and lacks autofocus, I don’t think anybody would think it deserves a perfect score. I personally don’t care that it’s manual focus, however I know there will still be plenty of people who “need” it, and decide to get a different lens instead.  For example, most casual and professional photojournalists would probably be much better off with an ultra-wide zoom, either the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR or the Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS.  Or, specialists who need f/2.8 and zoom capabilities more than an extra few mm on the wide end, ought to consider instead the Nikon 14-24 2.8 or the Tokina 16-28 2.8.

18-quality-4-stars

Unfortunately, I won’t be handing out five star reviews for quality to Rokinon just yet.  Even though the build quality of this lens is quite impressive, it’s still very, well, plastic.

rokinon-fisheye-review-build-quality

Like the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 G that I also reviewed recently, most buyers will consider the Rokinon 12mm’s build quality to be, simply put, sufficient.  A handful of people always comment and say “What are you talking about, this thing is rock-solid!” and to them I would say, that’s great that you think so! Personally (as you saw in the video!), I put my gear through a little bit more abuse than most, and I would have preferred to see just a little bit more metal in the construction of this lens’ barrel and/or innards.  Even if it meant adding $100-200 to the price! (See the value rating below).

24-value-5-stars

At $499 for the Nikon version (which allows electronic aperture control, and saves EXIF data to images) and $492 for the Canon version (which does neither of those things, unfortunately), I have to say that this lens is a winner.  The Nikon 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye costs ~$200 more, but to gain autofocus, you forfeit all kinds of sharpness and other image quality, off-center.  The Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye is a closer alternate, at only ~$100 more, but is even less sharp than the Nikon.  The Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye is also $200 more, but is discontinued and about as sharp as the Sigma, or worse.

So, like I said, the Rokinon is pretty much the only full-frame fisheye lens I can recommend, and I’d still recommend it even if it cost $100-200 more.

Additional Rokinon 12mm Fisheye Sample Images

19-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review

rokinon-fisheye-review-sharpness100% Crop, f/16

24-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review

06-rokinon-12mm-fisheye-lens-review

Conclusion

32-overall-score-4-stars

Given the abundance of ultra-wide lenses out there, it’s hard to call this lens a “must-have” lens.  It is really only a must-have if you’ve ever shot with 16mm or 14mm and wished for more, and I’m certain that’s not very many people.

However, for those folks who do know what a huge difference just 1mm or 2mm can make, and crave every last one, there is no better lens that can match it.  I’d highly recommend the Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 Fisheye to anybody who is considering a fisheye or super-ultra-wide lens!

Happy clicking,
=Matt=

Matthew Saville is a full-time wedding photographer at Lin & Jirsa Photography, and a senior editor & writer at SLR Lounge.

Follow his personal wilderness adventures: Astro-Landscapes.com

See some of his latest wedding photography featured on: LinandJirsa.com

Comments [53]

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Michael Wigram

    Great article! I’m wondering, looking to buy a fish eye lens for underwater photography, whale sharks mainly, so large fish! Just wondering, does this lens auto focus as I think I’d need that underwater when using a housing, shooting with a Nikon D610. Thanks a lot.

    | |
  2. Erik Galindo

    Hey Mat! I never subscribe to reviews sites, and definetley never write about em, but yours is very neat man! Super congrats! U just made me decide for this lens after studying a to of lenses around. it looks awesome and Im starving for new adventures to come by !Thnx man!!

    | |
  3. Vikram Rikame

    Hi Matthew I am a budding concert photographer. Would buying this lens would make a great choice for me ? Since its a Manual lense would that be an issue ? I mainly cover edm and live concerts.
    Thanks in advance

    | |
  4. point bob

    Can fisheye hemi work in Illustrator????????????

    | |
  5. David Lin

    Thanks for the review, Matt. I have this Rokinon 12mm F2.8 fisheye lens. On some images, I would like to de-fish them. Do you know a good software for de-fishing the images? Thanks.

    David

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Hi David,

      Yes, Fisheye Hemi is great for correcting vertical lines, however to correct both horizontal and vertical lines you’re going to need a more advanced technique, and also you’re going to be throwing away a ton of image quality anyways. If you plan to do tons of de-fishing, I’d basically recommend just getting a traditional Rokinon 14mm, or maybe the Sigma 12-24mm, instead. For me though, in the adventure situations I find myself in, Fisheye Hemi did a good enough job of de-fishing the vertical lines that are most important for what I do.

      | |
  6. Amy Polzella

    Matthew, I just bought this lens (got it new for $405 including shipping!) and am anxious to use it. I have never used a fisheye before and all my other lenses have auto-focus. I am told there are some set it and forget it settings on these lenses and after calibration they are likely to be the sharpest lens in your bag.

    Do you have any tips for where to set it and leave it so I’m not wasting so much time trying to focus on subjects? Also, any tips on calibrating the focus?

    I appreciate your review (you basically “sold” me this lens lol) and any help you can give :)

    Amy

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Hi Amy,

      A manual focus lens doesn’t require any focus calibration, per se, just a preliminary check of its overall sharpness, to make sure you didn’t get a lemon. After that, you can be into set-it-and-forget-it territory.

      It depends what aperture you’re shooting at usually, of course. If you’re shooting at f/11 or f/16 all the time though, you could set the lens to be just inside the infinity mark, and it’d be tack sharp for everything more than a few feet away from the lens.

      However if you’re shooting at f/2.8 or f/4 on a wedding reception dance floor and your subjects are all 2-5 feet away, you might have to re-think the idea of never touching focus on the lens. It does take a little bit of checking up on from time to time, and I prefer to just use live view and a static subject for that. You can still roughly eyeball it and expect your depth of field to be pretty generous, but still re-focusing from 3-4 ft to 6-10 ft can help your sharpness overall when shooting certain stuff in close quarters.

      After a while though, I just get used to going by the focus markings on the lens. Unfortunately fisheye lenses don’t have much between infinity and a very, very close number, (I think the Rokinon goes from infinity to 3 ft?) …but you eventually learn to just gauge certain distances between the markings.

      Hope this helps!

      | |
  7. Michael Young

    Awesome video and review. I actually own the fisheye 12mm and was debating buying the 14mm, but maybe not now. One thing, I have the fisheye hemi plugin, which works great. You mentioned a second pass on those interior shots which look amazing. What is the process you did for the second pass?

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Basically you re-size the canvas so that the image is a vertical image instead, with blank edges on the top and bottom, and then you run the plugin to help straighten both vertical and horizontal lines. I believe the Fisheye Hemi website has a good tutorial on this, but I’m not sure. Maybe it was a separate review of the Fisheye Hemi app.

      | |
  8. Mauro Bertolini

    Hi Matt, thank you for your Rokinon 12 mm f/2.8 review. It’s very interesting! I would like to buy a Samyang 12mm f/2.8 for star trails photos, but before I’ll buy it I need to understand how a star trail photo “works” with Fisheye Hemi. After using Fisheye Hemi, is star trail good enough? I’m worried about strange distortions of star trail. Can you post your star trail with digger after using Fisheye Hemi or some other samples? Thanks! Cheers, Mauro

    | |
  9. Mihail Bebrovski

    Thanks for your reply, so if I purchased the Fisheye Hemi software, do you think it would work to correct distortion and straighten lines like a lens correction profile, or is it unique for each photo/frame, rendering it incapable for video use? Thanks.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Unfortunately I don’t think it works for video, it is more like a lens profile add-on that has to be applied to individual images in Photoshop…

      | |
    • Mihail Bebrovski

      Thanks for the info, I’ll try and see if there’s any other tools.

      | |
  10. Mihail Bebrovski

    Great review and demonstration of this lens, loved the timelapses too.
    I used to have a vivitar 13mm 2.8, and the lens was pretty awesome in all regards except lack of AF, and mustache distortion. I just bought this new 12mm 2.8 lens for my 6D because it looks really cool for photography & video. But, it does have quite a bit more curvature than the 14mm, and when I saw your de-fisheye results on your video, the lens looks even wider, and the lines look much better. I was wondering, is there a preset or plugin for de-fisheye-ing video? I use premiere and After effects, I think Photoshop supports video editing, I just want the capability to do so, and I’m open to any options. Thank you.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Yes, it is a photoshop plugin called Fisheye Hemi. It really works great at fixing vertical lines on horizontal images, but it leaves horizontal lines on horizontal images kinda bent if you’re photographing on the beach for example. There are a few tricks you can do though, to get around this. All in all, it’s a one-of-a-kind lens and certainly a very specialized lens, but IMO 100% worth it if you need what it offers… Otherwise, the Rokinon 14mm with the available lens correction profiles might be a better choice…

      =Matt=

      | |
    • Michael Young

      You would need to export to an image sequence and create an action that applies the fisheye hemi plugin each time. A guy on vimeo did this > https://vimeo.com/24700004

      | |
  11. Bradley Reid

    I have the Sigma 15mm F/2.8 DG fisheye, but I am seriously thinking of also picking up the Rokinon 12mm fisheye. The Rokinon optical formula shows 3 ED elements, 2 aspherical elements, and there’s also nano coating. This lens sounds like it’s worth it’s price and doesn’t sound anything like cheap if anyone is wondering.

    | |
  12. Neal Pollack

    Matthew:
    What is your experience with Rokinon/Samyang sample variation on this model lens? For their 14mm F2.8, this week I am on my third copy trying to find one that was actually built properly (Decentered lens elements, improper tolerances on the Nikon F mount base, so too tight turning onto the camera).

    I also want this 12mm really badly, but am wondering if anyone has tested more than “one lucky unit” to determine if there are random quality issues in this model also?

    It looks like Samyang/Rokinon is making some outstanding lens options, but letting the customer be the “QA testing Dept” :-(

    Cheers,

    Neal

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Hi Neal,

      I haven’t heard any word on sample variation for this relatively new lens, yet, but in my experience Rokinons are almost always sharp to begin with, the real problem comes if you abuse it moderately. Some lenses “fall apart” after a while, and others seem to stay sharp.

      Having tested pretty much EVERY Rokinon lens (model) ever, I’d say it’s a very safe bet that I didn’t just get some magically nice copy. I have never heard bad things about Rokinons right out of the box, they’ve always been issues later on due to heavy abuse and extremely high standards.

      And, as far as long-term abuse survival is concerned, as I mentioned in this review (as well as the new Rokinon 50mm f/1.4 review) …I feel like Rokinon is making good progress in the direction of quality control and reliability.

      | |
  13. Jason Boa

    Very cool

    | |
  14. Andrew Von Haden

    Guess this answers what fisheye to get when I finally sell my 8mm Rokinon.

    | |
  15. Graham Curran

    The posted images make this lens look a good proposition for a low price.

    | |
  16. Orlin Nikolov

    For the price tag it shows quite good images…

    | |
  17. Ralph Hightower

    Regarding the removable hood of the lens, I have to agree that is a deterrent. I bought a lens hood for my Canon FD 28mm f2.8 that attaches to the lens using the slots. On a few occasions, the hood fell to the ground.

    | |
  18. Trey Mortensen

    The 14mm 2.8 is my #2 lens (I’ve been getting into a lot of astro and night photography lately) and is always in my bag. It’s not the most durable (my infinity has slipped to be at the 3m mark), but it’s super sharp and cost me less than $300, which makes it totally worth it. This new lens looks awesome, but I have a question on Fisheye Hemi. Where do you get that plug-in and does it work with the rectilinear 14mm (since it isn’t the straightest lens)?

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Hi Trey,

      Fisheye Hemi is a simple de-fisheye plugin for Photoshop, it only does three things:

      De-fisheye normal full-frame images
      De-fisheye full-frame fisheye lenses when used on a crop sensor
      De-fisheye circular fisheye images

      http://www.imagetrendsinc.com/products/prodpage_hemi.asp

      The best way to correct the distortion on the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 is to download the Lightroom profile for it, I forget which review this was brought up in, but I think it might have been my D810 review?

      | |
  19. robert s

    $500?! no thanks. ill keep my sigma 15mm DG fisheye. $110 more has 4 years warranty and auto focus. such a huge lens with no autofocus. and the durability is not that good. I have the 8mm 3.5 AE for nikon they make and the focus ring is slipping after a year of use. a VDSLR shooter I work with has the 85 1.4 and his focus ring is slipping as well. cheap is expensive. but here, expensive is overpriced. I dont see 1 reason to buy this over the sigma or even the nikon which is a bit more and has 5 years warranty.
    weighs more, bigger, no af, only 1 year warranty. bad resale value.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Like I said, Robert, I felt the same way about the Nikon 16 2.8 when I first held the two. The Nikon is teeny-tiny, and has autofocus too.

      If you need just ONE reason to buy this over the Sigma, it would be clearly described in my review: the Rokinon WIPES THE FLOOR with the Nikon WRT sharpness, and the Sigma is only marginally better than the Nikon. Other folks who review this lens and have had access to more fisheyes than I, have all stated that this Rokinon beats the Sigma handsomely, and even gives the new exotic Canon 8-15 L a run for it’s money…

      That’s only one reason, but if you needed another, did I mention that it’s much, much wider, and de-fishes beautifully?

      As usual of course, if you already own a lens, it’s hard to justify upgrading. Depending on what you do, you might not need to. However there will be plenty of folks out there who’ll be buying it, or even dumping their existing UWA / fisheye in favor of this one.

      Carry on.

      | |
  20. ed pouso

    Is the Samyang 12mm F2.8 Ultra Wide Fisheye Lens the same thing?

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Yes, Rokinon and Bower and Samyang all use the same, um, blueprints… Not sure if they use the same exact factory for 100% of the work, because sometimes the lenses come with a different color stripe lol, but either way they’re pretty much the same. I may be wrong but I think / heard a rumor that one of the companies might be getting “the cream of the crop” from the factory, and one of them might be getting all the “bottom of the barrel” lenses that barely passed QC. I’ll have to look into this and report back!

      =Matt=

      | |
  21. Basit Zargar

    Good article.

    | |
  22. Dave Haynie

    Good article.

    I have the Sigma 12-24mm for my Canon FF… fisheye is pretty much the only way to go wider. I also have both the Rokinon 12mm and 8mm fisheye for my OM-D. Never gave fishetes much thought back in the days of film…. seemedcan expensive special effect. But the ease of de-fisheyeing these days makes them far more practical.

    | |
  23. J D

    Very nice. I see reviews and results like this and it makes me sad that I got such a dud lens from Rokinon. I had a 14mm f2.8 and no matter what body it was on or who was using it, half the frame was soft as melted butter. The other side was sharp. Had to send it back and I was turned off by the whole thing.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      JD, when you’re buying lenses this cheap, it’s just part of the game. Some people are OK with it, and others aren’t. You’re missing out though! The astro-landscape photography companions I have all use Rokinon glass, and several of them have even had issues with their lenses going south and getting very soft after just a year of abuse. They don’t care, they just get it serviced, sell it, and buy a new one! You just can’t beat the price and sharpness, and if you’re into landscape photography and stuff like this, it makes a lot of sense despite the drawback of QC and overall longevity.

      | |
    • J D

      This was right out of the box Matthew. I had 30 days to return it and I ended returning it after 10 days. I used it a lot for those 10 days and nothing turned out. I don’t expect “L” lens quality and build but to have half the frame soft and the other super sharp is not something I was going to put up with. I paid $584CAN for the Rokinon and ended up returning it and picking up a Tokina 16-28 instead. Not as wide but for $40more than the Rokinon, I got zoom and AF. Like I said, I heard many good things about Rokinon but my experience left a lot to be desired.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Well, I’ve had multiple friends who’ve owned the Tokina 16-28 and had it break on them 4-5 times total.

      Sometimes you eat the bar, and well, sometimes the bar eats you…

      | |
  24. Arnold Ziffel

    Nice review. Samyang has got it going on.

    | |
  25. Herm Tjioe

    I just love those images you posted, truly representative of the capabilities and framing of this lens.

    | |
  26. Paul Monaghan

    looks nice, I love mt 8mm samyang and this seems to keep the same type of rendering.

    | |
  27. Aaron Cheney

    I might just have to add this to my list of lenses to get

    | |
  28. Matthew Smith

    Would you prefer this lens over the Canon 15mm f2.8 Fisheye? I have been considering selling mine and buying this. Thanks for the review!

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Absolutely, Matthew Smith. The Canon 15 fisheye is a dog, to be honest, with serious field curvature and very sad sharpness overall. It is sharp in the dead-center for photojournalism and extreme sports where most of the outer image doesn’t matter at all, but that is about all it has going for it. Regardless of what you shoot, I’d prefer the Rokinon 12mm.

      | |
  29. Bill Bentley

    Nice review Matthew. And as already mentioned, excellent sample shots showing what a lens like this can really do.

    | |
  30. Steve VanSickle

    I tend to shoot a 24-105 at active events, but I notice a HUGE difference when I switch up to my 17-35. I haven’t had a fisheye since my APS-C Rokinon, and it looks like this will be a lot of fun to use for my more creative photography. Thanks for the stellar sample shots!

    | |
  31. John Cavan

    I don’t find that I worry too much about manual focus with ultra-wide lenses. The use-case for them, in general, is such that you have time to focus and compose your shot most of the time, so not a big deal. I’ve wondered about getting a fisheye before, maybe this will push me over the edge.

    | |
  32. Greg Silver

    I don’t have the fisheye but have the Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 and find the build quality and image quality both amazing! Had to get used to manual focus but am finding I’m using this lens more and more! Highly recommended.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Yes the Rokinon 12mm f/2 is so small and simple, it felt like it would last many years when I handled it. Unfortunately I wish the corners were a little better on the 12mm f/2, because I’d buy it and a Sony A6000 or Fuji X-something in a heartbeat for astro-landscape B-roll… Toss in the Rokinon 16mm f/2 and you’ve got a real winner…

      | |
  33. Vince Arredondo

    I’m getting excited!! This has to be in my bag…

    | |
  34. | |
  35. Christopher Fuller

    Really digging this article! I think I will have to get me a fisheye soon!

    | |