Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens Owners thoughts?

I'm suddenly in the caught in the middle of a LBA quandry. I was thinking of getting the Pentax 10-17 FE as something of an experimental lens, that could be pushed into service as a normal corrected UW through the use of Defishing software like PT lens.

Now I see that sigma has the a 8-16 rectilinear UW out, for around the same price of the Fish Eye.

I every once in awhile really need a wider lens for doing shots in small rooms. Sauna Hamman, classrooms, museums, So now I'm in a quandry and need a little support in the decision making process.

To all intents and purposes the Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 10-17 cost the same. I just have a sense that in the long rum the Sigma will be more useful to me than the Pentax, but I wonder if I'll miss that FE magic? 180° coverages on the Pentax seems unreal!!

I know there is a weight Penalty with the sigma which is 200 gr's heavier than the Pentax. I also know about the terrible purple fringing on the pentax,

Regards

Brent

--
Reflections, understandings, discoveries and intimations..

Brentliris said:

I also know about the terrible purple fringing on the pentax,

Click to expand...

Mine had PF on the K10D (CCD sensor with microlenses which apparently encouraged the phenomenon). Since switching to the K20D (and onwards), the CMOS sensors seem to have eliminated PF from my 10-17 FE.

Sorry, can't help with the 8-16 (happy enough with my DA15). Looks a great lens though.

--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

8-16 perfect for architecture photography. I used for landscape but often too wide.

But, it is an awesome option with great optical quality. It has received great reviews for having best corner sharpness for uw zooms. I caveat is no option for front filters. Mine was stolen from me and I miss it. I have the Sigma 10-20 but its not as good but decent and cheap.

I've never used a fisheye, Brent, so I can't comment there. My Sigma 8-16 is one of my favourite lenses, though. Good contrast and sharpness; too big for filters but I've not found that a problem. You wouldn't want to use a CPL on such a wide lens and its coatings seem to give good, rich blues in the sky.

The strethced corners can sometimes look a bit strange but (if you can be bothered to put in the effort) the Adobe Transform > Warp tool can give a more natural look: other software probably does the same.

I'm sure you've seen plenty of examples but here are a few more.















--
---

Gerry


First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne

Brentliris said:

I'm suddenly in the caught in the middle of a LBA quandry. I was thinking of getting the Pentax 10-17 FE as something of an experimental lens, that could be pushed into service as a normal corrected UW through the use of Defishing software like PT lens.

Now I see that sigma has the a 8-16 rectilinear UW out, for around the same price of the Fish Eye.

I every once in awhile really need a wider lens for doing shots in small rooms. Sauna Hamman, classrooms, museums, So now I'm in a quandry and need a little support in the decision making process.

To all intents and purposes the Sigma 8-16 and the Pentax 10-17 cost the same. I just have a sense that in the long rum the Sigma will be more useful to me than the Pentax, but I wonder if I'll miss that FE magic? 180° coverages on the Pentax seems unreal!!

I know there is a weight Penalty with the sigma which is 200 gr's heavier than the Pentax. I also know about the terrible purple fringing on the pentax,

Click to expand...

Fisheyes have very strong barrel distortion, but as a plus side they don't distort perspective. Rectilinear lenses don't distort straight lines, but they have strong perspective distortion.

The difference is, if you put a face or body near the edge of a fisheye frame, the subject won't get larger and they will appear the proper distance from the camera. The perspective remains correct, but it will distort them in a curved manner.

The point is fisheyes might be better if your are photographing people near the edge of the frame and don't want them to look really fat or have bat ears, but then you have to watch curvature.

The two lenses you are looking at, the Pentax 10-17mm is going to be better for extreme closeups, it focuses closer and has higher magnification, but I preferred using my Sigma 8-16mm for every day photos. If you want a fisheye you could always get an inexpensive Samyang 8mm or something, then you might be able to get that in addition to an 8-16mm or other rectilinear lens. Some people will make great use of fisheye lenses, but I find I generally don't use them unless I am playing around with camera gear.

Eric

Edit:

Fisheye example, note lack of perspective distortion (perspective is odd, yes, but not distorted, I am just very close to the subject):



Rectilinear example, Note the bat ears. Perspective is distorted here, but the floor lines are all nice and straight and same with the oven.



--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://www.erphotoreview.com/ (bi-weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)

Thanks for the very informative example and descriptions of the the two types of lenses.

It's really a hard call. I really like the creative posibilllities of F'E but I also sense that it can be somewhat of a challenge to get a usable image out of it. The UW as you so clearly demonstrate has it's limitaions as well.

I think I'm starting to understand more about the UW versus FE. But I am convinced something really wide is a must. I live in Copenhagen, it's not a fantastically grand and glorious city like London or Paris with all the large scale sumptuous architecture it's more intimate, it's the interior worlds that are interesting here. So much to explore on the inside in small intimate churchs museums crypts, old stairways, libraries. This combined with some fairly interesting new modern architecture on a human scale, gives a UW alot of materiel to chew on....

I'm tempted to get the Sigma and combine that with another type of specielty lens like the "Composer" to get some kick to my output. I might add that I don't think Danish landscape and UW really work together, genrally lacks contour and large scale formations that need UW, it's for the Urban and interior space I'll use it.

Regards

Brent

--
Reflections, understandings, discoveries and intimations..

If you want to have the best possible proportion to each face in a large group of people, finding a lens that gives you a stereographic projection is the ideal. The lens that comes closest to this, and yet yields nearly 180 degree diagonal coverage, is the Samyang 8mm.
Examples here:
http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/F1zqCtah/1/5431175#imageID=148382795

Conventional fisheye is not proportional in that edges result in a banana-shaped face and body. The Samyang is nearly proportional. Photos taken in the bowling alley show balls are round throughout the image frame, and other spheres (wall decorations) remain nearly undistorted.

JNR
http://www.jamesrobins.com

This info on the Stereographic lens has really got me going rethinking my Lens plan. I aready own the DA15 and am just looking for a wider auxiliary range for the very special situations where I need to go UW. So The economically sensible thing would be just to get the Samyang. If it's even superior for my usage that 's even better.

Thanks

JNR

Regards

Brent
--
Reflections, understandings, discoveries and intimations..

Glad I could be helpful. I dabble in panoramas, and this lens is often compared to the Nikon 10.5mm - which is considered a benchmark for that endeavor (and is priced accordingly). The Samyang isn't quite as sharp as some competitors in the center, but might be the best you can get on the edges - where so many fisheyes have problems. I guess I would rather have a lens that has good sharpness and minimal CA corner to corner rather than one that is slightly sharper in the center and poor in the corners.

One odd thing about the lens is focus shift especially at close focus- but it is pretty easy to work around once you are aware of it. (Do not readjust the barrel focus setting as many owners have suggested - it will make it impossible to reach the infinity when stopped down beyond f/8, and void the warranty!) Here is a visual representation of the shift:
http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/4fYFg8z6/1/5442548

JNR
http://www.jamesrobins.com

Brent

I have both Sigma 8-16 and Samyang 8mm. The Samyang is wider than Sigma at 8mm and is still wider even after defishing. Not that defishing is always necessary or desirable.

For defishing I use Fisheye-Hemi. It's an excellent program.

When I go out I always take Samyang 8mm and often leave Sigma 8-16 at home. It's a lighter option for carrying about.
--
David, an Australian living in the Highlands of Scotland.

Actually I'm seriously considering the Samyang now.

Weight is definitley an issue for me as I am always doing alot of walking.

Thanks for the inputs

Brent
--
Reflections, understandings, discoveries and intimations..

Brent,

You probably know that Samyang is the manufacturer - and one of several available labels for the exact same lens, including Falcon, Rokinon, Bower, Bell+Howell, Opteka (6.5mm FL claimed but still the exact same lens), Vivitar (7mm - slightly different rubber grip). I'm sure I've missed a few.

JNR
http://www.jamesrobins.com