Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

Started Aug 7, 2010 | Discussions
Dan_168
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,812
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to CrewDog, Aug 12, 2010

CrewDog wrote:

Dan_168 wrote:

... don't feel like bring the D3, 1DS2 or 1D2, ...

... on my D300 ...

Dan,

Since you appear to use an impressive variety of bodies & lenses of both makes, I couldn't help but ask your thoughts on Canon v. Nikon color rendition.

Apologies for the off-topic post. I'm actually researching UWAs while my Canon 10-22 is on its way....

Ryan

Ryan,

Let's not start a Canon Vs. Nikon war here, ( we already have too many of those ) and I am well aware I am in the Canon forum now, so whatever I said here is pure a PERSONAL preference from a clueless guy, hahaha, that's all. so people don't need to scream at me.

With that being said, to answer your question, I think with proper PP skill, I think you can pretty much achieve whatever end result you want as far as color's concerned from any of those camera I mentioned. I am not a photoshop lover but just a "lazy snap-shooter" :), I rather spend more time out there hiking, climbing, snowboarding and shooting instead of Post Processing in front of a computer, My work flow can't get any simpler, shoot raw, do a simple RAW conversion with DPP or Capture NX2, with very little PP like exposure correction, WB correction, that's about it. so say straight out of the camera without color adjustment, with my cameras, I really like those green came out of my Canon bodies and I seem to like the reds from my Nikon more than the Canon. I believe the Canon gives me a cooler image while the Nikon is normally warmer, again, that's straight out of the camera, and to my own eyes only, other people will tell you something different.

As for the UWA, I had that 10-22 before for my 20D, but again at that time I have no other option, but since the 8-16 is here and I have played with my friends copy and I really really like it, I just love NONE Fisheye UWA, so 12MM equivalent vs 16MM is a big deal to me, also the sigma has amazing corner sharpness, it's also a rectilinier lens while the 10-22 is not.therefore I am getting the Sigma 8-16 for my T2i.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
martin brech
Regular MemberPosts: 255
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to Dan_168, Aug 12, 2010

"also the sigma has amazing corner sharpness, it's also a rectilinier lens while the 10-22 is not.therefore I am getting the Sigma 8-16 for my T2i."

Hi

could you explain what difference it make to have a rectilinier lens vs a normal lens?

Also, i've seen in reviews that that canon 10-22 has very few distortion at 10, whereas ths sigma 8-16 has a lot at 8mm and 10mm. Could you confirm this?

Thank you very much!
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vcx123456/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dan_168
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,812
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to martin brech, Aug 12, 2010

martin brech wrote:

"also the sigma has amazing corner sharpness, it's also a rectilinier lens while the 10-22 is not.therefore I am getting the Sigma 8-16 for my T2i."

Hi

could you explain what difference it make to have a rectilinier lens vs a normal lens?

Also, i've seen in reviews that that canon 10-22 has very few distortion at 10, whereas ths sigma 8-16 has a lot at 8mm and 10mm. Could you confirm this?

Thank you very much!
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vcx123456/

Hello,

I will use someone else's words to explain that, basically you will get straight line instead of curved lines, so in landscape photo it translates into straight trees, poles, even they are near the edge of the frame....unfortunately, while they are straight, it doesn't mean they won't "lean over", for that you will need Tilt & Shift lens like the TSE17 or TSE24 to correct it. IMO, if you do landscape, the distortion is a lot less noticeable and a lot easier to manage than if you use it for architecture photography. But again for a crop camera if you need this wide, you really don't have any other better option out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectilinear_lens

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
CrewDog
Forum MemberPosts: 62
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to Dan_168, Aug 12, 2010

Dan,

Thanks for the colorful commentary (pun intended) and also the rectilinear explanation.

Back on topic, I have experienced buyers remorse from the minute I pulled the trigger on the 10-22 since all indications are that the 8-16 is sharper and, of course wider. That said, I also look forward to trying shooting dramatically-lit landscapes like sunrises/sets where I'd enjoy the capability of a GND filter or perhaps a CP for some "pop"--that is, if I can compose a shot where the sky stays evenly saturated, so maybe not all the way out to 10mm.

My verdict is that I've got to give the 10-22 a try. I've read good things about it, too. Maybe one of these years, we'll all be shooting a 5DIV with a Canon 12-24mm f/2 L IS (I'm dreaming here...) but for now, I need a UWA, and no threads on the 8-16 was the deal breaker.

Edit: But maybe I should try a Sigma 8-16 before my two weeks runs out! Straight lines at 8mm sounds nice...

Ryan

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Paul De Bra
Forum ProPosts: 11,274Gear list
Like?
The Canon 10-22 really is rectilinear.
In reply to Dan_168, Aug 12, 2010

When you wrote:

... also the sigma has amazing corner sharpness, it's also a rectilinier lens while the 10-22 is not.therefore I am getting the Sigma 8-16 for my T2i...
you were mistaken.

The Canon 10-22, Sigma 8-16, 10-20, Tamron 10-24, 11-18, Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 are all rectilinear. Only the Tokina 10-17 is a fish-eye lens.

Now, while rectilinear there may be a bit of barrel distortion with these lenses, at the wide end. This is true for all of them, but some have a bit more distortion than others. The Canon 10-22 has low distortion and so does the Sigma 8-16.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

 Paul De Bra's gear list:Paul De Bra's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F200EXR Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
martin brech
Regular MemberPosts: 255
Like?
Re: The Canon 10-22 really is rectilinear.
In reply to Paul De Bra, Aug 12, 2010

Paul De Bra wrote:

When you wrote:

... also the sigma has amazing corner sharpness, it's also a rectilinier lens while the 10-22 is not.therefore I am getting the Sigma 8-16 for my T2i...

you were mistaken.

The Canon 10-22, Sigma 8-16, 10-20, Tamron 10-24, 11-18, Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 are all rectilinear. Only the Tokina 10-17 is a fish-eye lens.

Now, while rectilinear there may be a bit of barrel distortion with these lenses, at the wide end. This is true for all of them, but some have a bit more distortion than others. The Canon 10-22 has low distortion and so does the Sigma 8-16.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the 450D, the Canon G6 and the Fuji F200.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Thank you, everything is clear now!
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vcx123456/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,618
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to martin brech, Aug 12, 2010

martin brech wrote:

"also the sigma has amazing corner sharpness, it's also a rectilinier lens while the 10-22 is not.therefore I am getting the Sigma 8-16 for my T2i."

could you explain what difference it make to have a rectilinier lens vs a normal lens?

Dan has got this wrong, the 10-22 is a rectilinear lens (as are all the others listed by Paul De Bra).

Also there's a misunderstanding in your question - a rectilinear lens is just a technical term for what we normally regard as a normal lens - one which projects straight lines as straight lines.

Barrel distortion is a small deviation from being truly rectilinear and some lenses have more than others. The 10-22 is exceptionally good, with barrel distortion which is so slight that it can barely be seen even in critical architectural shots. The Sigma 10-20 is very good too, but the 8-16 has very unpleasant 'wavy' distortion that will irritate the heck out of Dan if he doesn't want to do any PP. On the other hand it has exceptional corner sharpness - these are all good lenses, just with different design compromises.

Also, i've seen in reviews that that canon 10-22 has very few distortion at 10, whereas ths sigma 8-16 has a lot at 8mm and 10mm. Could you confirm this?

Anticipated this question above

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
martin brech
Regular MemberPosts: 255
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to Steve Balcombe, Aug 12, 2010
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jrarsenault
Senior MemberPosts: 1,134
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to CrewDog, Aug 12, 2010

Edit: But maybe I should try a Sigma 8-16 before my two weeks runs out! Straight lines at 8mm sounds nice...

Ryan

If you do try the Sigma 8-16, please report back to us what your opinions are in comparison to the Canon 10-22 that you just bought. Also, if you can, post some comparative photos. Good luck!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dan_168
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,812
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to CrewDog, Aug 13, 2010

CrewDog wrote:

Dan,

Thanks for the colorful commentary (pun intended) and also the rectilinear explanation.

Back on topic, I have experienced buyers remorse from the minute I pulled the trigger on the 10-22 since all indications are that the 8-16 is sharper and, of course wider. That said, I also look forward to trying shooting dramatically-lit landscapes like sunrises/sets where I'd enjoy the capability of a GND filter or perhaps a CP for some "pop"--that is, if I can compose a shot where the sky stays evenly saturated, so maybe not all the way out to 10mm.

My verdict is that I've got to give the 10-22 a try. I've read good things about it, too. Maybe one of these years, we'll all be shooting a 5DIV with a Canon 12-24mm f/2 L IS (I'm dreaming here...) but for now, I need a UWA, and no threads on the 8-16 was the deal breaker.

Edit: But maybe I should try a Sigma 8-16 before my two weeks runs out! Straight lines at 8mm sounds nice...

Ryan

yeah, you can't use any filer on the 8-16, unless you want to handhold it. have fun with the lens and good luck, report back how you like the lens, which ever you ended up with.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
LSHorwitz1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,107Gear list
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to jrarsenault, Aug 13, 2010

jrarsenault wrote:

Edit: But maybe I should try a Sigma 8-16 before my two weeks runs out! Straight lines at 8mm sounds nice...

Ryan

If you do try the Sigma 8-16, please report back to us what your opinions are in comparison to the Canon 10-22 that you just bought. Also, if you can, post some comparative photos. Good luck!

In an earlier thread, I posted in my Gallery a photo of a brick wall to demonstrate how the Sigma 8-16 does with straight lines at 8mm.

It may be of interest to repeat that here so I will will post this sample for anyone who is interested.

Larry

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kymarto
Contributing MemberPosts: 631
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to LSHorwitz1, Aug 15, 2010

The only use for a polarizer on an UWA lens is to saturate foliage and eliminate other non-specular reflections. It is useless for darkening the sky, you will only get distracting banding.

I always carry CPLs, and use them often. Personally, I have not missed using it on the 8-16. Of course it would be nice if possible, but really the difference is pretty minimal IMO. So the leaves are a bit shiny, so what?

Toby

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kymarto
Contributing MemberPosts: 631
Like?
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?
In reply to CrewDog, Aug 15, 2010

If you want "pop", just shoot HDR.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads