Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
Chris Malcolm
Heirophant
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:02 am

Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by Chris Malcolm »

This lens has been out for several weeks in Nikon & Canon mounts, and has recently arrived in Sony Alpha mount. I've long been a fan of wide angle rectilinear lenses, mainly for architectural exteriors and interiors, where it's often impossible to step back far enough to get everything in. For a long time Sigma's 10-20mm has been a favorite with APS-C sensor sized DSLRs, and one of my favourite lenses.

But two things annoyed me about it. The first was that it didn't quite reach that magic angle of view of a bit more than 90 degrees. That's the angle which is wide enough from edge to edge to just get all four walls of a room in the shot if the camera is tight up in the corner. The second was that a lot of my shots with the 10-20mm were at 10mm, confirming my subjective impression that quite often I'd crank it wide and hit the stop, wishing it was just a bit wider.

The reviews so far of Sigma's 8-16mm (from photozone.de and lenstip) look good.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc

http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=o ... est_ob=246

I'm still finding out what it can do and how to use it, but so far I'm impressed. It's comfortably past the magic 90 degree boundary at 112 degrees. At f8 it seems about as sharp as the 10-20mm, but unlike that lens, maintains the sharpness well when the aperture is opened up. It may even be a bit sharper at f5.6.

I thought the internal focus motor would be an unnecessary luxury, but it permits the lens AF to to be switched on and off much more easily than the rather awkward AF/MF switch on the A350/550 (and possibly other Alphas). It also has a very nice clutch on the manual focus ring, which lets you trim focus manually with AF engaged just by moving the ring. I find AF a bit iffy on these ultra wide lenses, and get better results by using manual focus. The easy switch and focus ring clutch on the Sigma 8-16mm make slipping between AF and manual focus delightfully easy.

Like Sigma's 10-20mm, the 8-16mm has a little curl of barrel distortion at the edges of its widest angle. I like that, because in wide angle group shots it reduces the width of the people at the edges of the image, which they usually prefer :-) For precisely rectilinear architectural shots it corrects easily in such lens correction utilities as PTLens which use a database of specific lens geometry distortions. In fact I was impressed to discover that PTLens already recognised this lens and corrected it perfectly.

Here's an interior view of the quadrangle of Edinburgh University's Old College. I didn't have to step right back into the corner to get the four walls in, and there was enough extra to do a bit of tilt and perspective correction and the consequent slight cropping down.

Image

and an URL from which larger sizes can be obtained via the "actions" button.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/4735081540/

Here's a wide long perspective street view.

Image

and an URL from which larger sizes can be obtained.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris_malcolm/4741252207/
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

Hi Chris. I'd like you to revise this post, and send me two or three later pictures, in the next couple of weeks - [email protected]. We can use it in the magazine, some suitable reward offered!

I have already had the 8-16mm, in Nikon fit, and completed a review which the BJP will probably run next month (they held my Nikon 16-35mm review over to this month, thereby losing the 'first test' cachet - lack of space when I sent it in). I was comparing it with the 12-24mm on full frame, as it is an exactly equivalent of that lens. I was curious to see whether the 8-16mm might offer a solution to travel problems; I do not like 'losing' my 12-24mm ability for the reasons you give so eloquently in your post (over 90 degrees does matter) but that forces me to carry a very heavy A900 kit.

My conclusion was that the 8-16mm is better made. In the process of testing, I did side-by-side shots. The 12-24mm has a distinct zone of unsharpness caused by simple misalignment of the entire lens, and I am considering shimming the mount asymmetrically to solve this problem. The 8-16mm on my Nikon D5000 had no such issues. But optically, it's maybe a notch below the 12-24mm, in that it shows some CA - the 12-14mm shows no CA at all in most shots . The CA is about the same as the Zeiss 16-80mm.

I've sent the 8-16mm Nikon down to Richard (son) to try out on his Fuji S5 and Nikon D3S. I also did not find it so much smaller than the 12-24mm, that it would have saved a lot of bag space. 72mm filters are definitely more friendly than 82mm, but of course 82mm works on the 12-24mm when using APS-C and the hood tube; 72mm can not do anything useful with the 8-16mm except when it is used in a 4/3rds version.

David
User avatar
springm
Oligarch
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:24 pm
Location: Bad Reichenhall, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by springm »

Chris, David,

when considering to buy a replacement for my not-so-stellar Tamron 11-18 - probably misaligned, but I discovered that too late - would you see the 8-16 in the same league as the Tokina 11-16? Using the latter wide open on the A700 seems somewhat pointless to me anyway, as the AF is more guessing than focusing. Is it correct to assume that f2.8 would be reasonable on the speculation that a A700 successor will have LiveView and contrast AF (and that I would buy it)?
I should add that whenever I use my 11-18, I mostly do so at the short end.

My last images with the 11-18 are here:
http://markus-spring.info/wp/2010/06/eg ... ke-in-krk/
http://markus-spring.info/wp/2010/06/mi ... p-szinpad/
The left side in my eyes is decidedly less sharp.

Markus
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

Markus, using the 11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina and the centre focus point of the A700 switches on the f/2.8 sensor and gives you immediately better than double the focusing accuracy - it's actually what you need most with a wide angle.

Also, the 11-16mm Tokina is an amazingly good lens.

David
User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by pakodominguez »

David Kilpatrick wrote:Markus, using the 11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina and the centre focus point of the A700 switches on the f/2.8 sensor and gives you immediately better than double the focusing accuracy - it's actually what you need most with a wide angle.

Also, the 11-16mm Tokina is an amazingly good lens.

David
Hello,
How this 2 lenses, the Sigma and the Tokina, compares to the KM 17-35 f2.8-4? I mean, the 6-16 and the 11-16 on APS body and the 17-35 on FF body...

Regards
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

I would rate the 11-16mm Tokina as 'better' on APS-C than the 17-35mm KM/Tam on full frame, mainly because the usable range of apertures is better. But an f/11 17-35mm shot on the A900 completely blows away an f/11 Tokina shot on 12 megapixel APS-C. Same test at f/4 or f/5.6 might favour the Tokina on the smaller sensor.

David
User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by pakodominguez »

David Kilpatrick wrote:I would rate the 11-16mm Tokina as 'better' on APS-C than the 17-35mm KM/Tam on full frame, mainly because the usable range of apertures is better. But an f/11 17-35mm shot on the A900 completely blows away an f/11 Tokina shot on 12 megapixel APS-C. Same test at f/4 or f/5.6 might favour the Tokina on the smaller sensor.

David
Thanks!
I have to say that the 17-35 is one of the lens I use that had paid for itself many times, a really good investment...

Regards
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
springm
Oligarch
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:24 pm
Location: Bad Reichenhall, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by springm »

David, thanks. Of course your last reply to Pako's question again opened up that Pandora's box of "should I switch to Full Frame?" As I already have the Minolta 17-35 plus a Minolta 2.8/28-75 it is a valid question and not to be answered easily. Every investment in a non-FF lens of course will impede the acquisition of any FF gear :cry:

Markus
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 5985
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by David Kilpatrick »

I have the same pair of lenses and it's very difficult for me to decide whether to use these or the Sigma 12-24mm and the Minolta 24-85mm. With this duo, I get better range, but not as good overall quality. The 17-35/28-75 definitely produce superior images technically.

David
Javelin
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by Javelin »

I use my 17-35 and either 28-135 or 28-105 a lot. I droped the 17-35 in the river a while ago and had to go down and get it' it's worked ok since drying it out but it got me thinking I should pick up another one soon as a spare
User avatar
springm
Oligarch
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:24 pm
Location: Bad Reichenhall, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by springm »

Before the decision to buy either the 8-16 or 11-16, I gave my old 11-18 another workout:

http://markus-spring.info/wp/2010/07/pit/
1:1 crop: http://markus-spring.info/varia/dsc39826_v2.jpg

http://markus-spring.info/wp/2010/07/r-for-reservation/

it doesn't look as unsharp as I had expected from the prior images in Budapest and Krk. The crop out of the first shot is not the extreme corner but left (weak) side from the middle to the border. Normal sharpening was applied in bibble5 (including usage of the USM plugin), and I think I did not overdo it. The lens was stopped down to f9 at 11mm, and for me the result is not wonderful but still acceptable. It seems that this lens still can be used, albeit not fully open. And then I can further procrastinate re. the decision about full-frame or not.

Markus
User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by Dusty »

For some reason this thread is sticking as unread, even though I've read every post. Perhaps posting this here will cause it to re-set properly.

Dusty
User avatar
roysmith
Heirophant
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Contact:

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by roysmith »

Dusty wrote:For some reason this thread is sticking as unread, even though I've read every post. Perhaps posting this here will cause it to re-set properly.

Dusty
Thanks Dusty, I hate having unread threads :lol:
User avatar
UrsaMajor
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:36 am
Location: Southern California

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by UrsaMajor »

roysmith wrote:
Dusty wrote:For some reason this thread is sticking as unread, even though I've read every post. Perhaps posting this here will cause it to re-set properly.
Thanks Dusty, I hate having unread threads :lol:
Me too. They are even more frustrating than unraveled threads!

:roll:

With best wishes,
- Tom -
User avatar
Dusty
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA

Re: Sigma 8-16mm -- some images and comment

Unread post by Dusty »

Dusty wrote:For some reason this thread is sticking as unread, even though I've read every post. Perhaps posting this here will cause it to re-set properly.

Dusty
I think I figured it out. This thread was sticking as unread because this lens wants to be owned by me! I had some time to stop in at the local camera shop Tuesday and tried this one out. I liked it a LOT!

Of course, I've been trying to save for the 580, so now I'm in a dilemma - new body or new lens?

Dusty
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests