Reading mode: Light Dark

Which UWA

Go to last post
gooseta

gooseta

Leading Member
Messages
710
Reaction score
43
Location
London, UK
While I understand that this post is slightly redundant after my other one about going to Germany with my sigma 10-20, here it is

I find the corners on the f3.5 sigma unsatisfactory at 10-12mm. It steadily improves but needs some stopping down. I shall be returning it when I come back (I would have returned it now but the other lens would have not come in time for everyone calling me a return abuser) I am having trouble with the decision of what lens to replace it with.. I was pretty sure about the 8-16 but I am also considering the 15mm limited. I have heard that wide-open this lens is soft in the corners, but at f5.6 would it match the UWA zooms at the same length? Are there any other lenses I should consider? I would buy the pentax 12-24 but that is too expensive. The tamron and tokina UWAs are about on par with the 10-20 and have a lot of pf and ca. Would the 15mm be wide enough for capturing landscapes along with some astrophotography etc, or would a 8-16 be better.
 
Did you like and use the zoom capabilities of the Sigma 10-20? If so, I think the 8-16 is what you should go with. I hear it's much better in terms of sharpness than the older design 10-20s.

On the other hand, I recently purchased the DA 15 Limited and loved it instantly, but of course, it's not as wide so not as flexible for adapting to given scene compositions. Regardless, I used it a lot on a recent trip to Maui...my 12-24 probably felt neglected. It's plenty sharp for my needs...although I haven't tested it much wide open.

Whatever you decide, enjoy!

Daryl
 
The corner sharpness you are looking for and your price point don't match. I am not sure the 10-20 you have, shot at 15, and the da 15mm are significantly different. The 8-16mm may be sharper. What you need is a Canon FF for $2000 and a Canon ts17 for $2500 or their other expensive non-shift wide angle (can't remember the specs). You can't expect the same thing out of $400 lenses.
 
I'm not expecting canon image quality and I dont use canon anyway ??? Not sure what you mean Im just trying to find the sharpest option.
 
gooseta said:
gooseta wrote:

I'm not expecting canon image quality and I dont use canon anyway ??? Not sure what you mean Im just trying to find the sharpest option.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The best UWA lens is the Sigma 8-16. But my knees do complain when I use it. For me to get a good composition, I have to get really low and close. It is my sharpest UWA lens. Flare is not bad considering the type of lens it is. But it is something you have to think about and move around some to reduce the flare.


The 15mm f4 is also a really nice lens. But I would say it needs f8 for good corner sharpness. It may be a DOF thing, but I almost always use the 15mm f4 at f8. The Sigma 8-16 I try to keep at f5.6-f8 for optimal IQ. But I have used it wide open when I needed a faster shutter speed.


The best thing about the 15 f4 is the absence of any flare. It is the best option for sunsets. The FOV is the equiv of a little wider than a 24mm FF. Of course, the Sigma 8-16 is the equiv of a 12-24. So you will need to decide if 15mm is wide enough. Personally, I believe 24mm equiv is wide enough for most landscapes.


The Tamron 10-24 has a nice range, but I would rate it average at best. I am not sure how it compares to the Sigma 10-20. But I would guess the Sigma is a better lens.

Pentax has a 10-17mm fish eye that is not too expensive. Near 17mm it is more of a WA as opposed to fish eye. It is a fun lens to use, but the IQ feels more like a kit lens to me. Note, that the kit lens is still a pretty good lens.


The only other lens I might consider is the Samyang(many names) 8mm fish eye. It would make a good lens to pair with the 15mm f4 or Sigma 8-16. But I would want it as my only UWA lens. It is MF only and even more challenging to get a good composition. However, it is fairly sharp and cheap. I also have seen some very impressive starscapes with this lens.
 
So would you say that there is a noticeable difference in sharpness at f5.6 between the 8-16 and the 15lim
 
According to reviews the f/3.5 version of the Sigma 10-20 (which I think is the version you have) is softer in the corners than the older f/4-5.6 version, which I used to have. I sold it a couple of weeks after I bought my 8-16 and in that time I did a few comparison shots. The 8-16 was just a tiny bit sharper than the 10-20 when I cropped it to equal FOV.

It's difficult to compare sharpness with other lenses because what you see in the FOV is so different. However, I use it in parallel with my DA lenses and I've never been disappointed about its sharpness. I've found in the past that Pentax lenses (the better ones, at least) have superior colour rendering to Sigma lenses. With the 8-16, though, the difference is so small that it's no problem at all.

If you want a UWA for what it can catch, 8mm gives a lot more than 10mm and even more than 12mm.

130043672.jpg


8mm FOV v 12mm

8mm FOV v 12mm




--
---

Gerry
_______________________________________

First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
www.pbase.com

Galleries by Gerry Winterbourne

www.pbase.com
 
My 8-16 is sharp right across the frame, even huge crops look good.

It would profit from more megapixies to play with.

Only downside is expensive filter solutions.

Pete
 
Wanganuilad said:
Wanganuilad wrote:

My 8-16 is sharp right across the frame, even huge crops look good.

It would profit from more megapixies to play with.

Only downside is expensive filter solutions.

Pete
Click to expand...
 
gooseta said:
gooseta wrote:

I'm not expecting canon image quality and I dont use canon anyway ??? Not sure what you mean Im just trying to find the sharpest option.
Click to expand...
 
James O'Neill said:
James O'Neill wrote:

I have the sigma 10-20 f/4 (not sure how different the 3.5 is really) and I don't have a problem with corner sharpness.
Click to expand...
Accepting the possibility of sample variation, Photozone has corner resolution as 1350 (F/4-5.6 version) and 750 (f/3.5 version) when measured on D200. It says "Resolution in the center is excellent, borders also are nothing to complain about and corner performance is ok at 15 and 20 mm, but very disappointing at 10 mm." [My italics]

Unfortunately it hasn't tested the f/3.5 version on Canon or Pentax. I think I remember the general opinion of other reviews was that the f/3.5 paid for its extra speed in lower IQ away from the centre.
James O'Neill said:
I wonder if it is the field of focus being curved when you expect it to be flat (or vice versa), your specific lens or some other issue
Click to expand...
These wouldn't help but I think the main problem is that f/3.5 plus 10mm is just a step too far.
 
Last edited:
James O'Neill said:
James O'Neill wrote:
James O'Neill said:
Gerry Winterbourne wrote:
Click to expand...
James O'Neill said:
Photozone has corner resolution as
1350 (F/4-5.6 version) and
750 (f/3.5 version)
Click to expand...
Really ? That's a huge variation .
Click to expand...
Yup. I was rounding by reading from the graphs but, as you see, I didn't misrepresent the difference. The newer version is a bit better in the centre than the older, and its edge performance picks up at shorter FLs.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikk...-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/467-sigma_1020_35_nikon?start=1
 
James O'Neill said:
James O'Neill wrote:
James O'Neill said:
gooseta wrote:

I'm not expecting canon image quality and I dont use canon anyway ??? Not sure what you mean Im just trying to find the sharpest option.

--
Click to expand...
I think his point was you said

"find the corners on the f3.5 sigma unsatisfactory at 10-12mm. It steadily improves but needs some stopping down."

and

"I would buy the pentax 12-24 but that is too expensive"

So you want an Ultra-wide, at it's extreme wide end and widest apperture, to be razor sharp in the corners, . The only way you're going to get that is to spend a lot more money but you don't want an expensive lens.

I have the sigma 10-20 f/4 (not sure how different the 3.5 is really) and I don't have a problem with corner sharpness. I wonder if it is the field of focus being curved when you expect it to be flat (or vice versa), your specific lens or some other issue
Click to expand...
I am just wondering why you wouldn't stop down a UWA? I routinely shoot my Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 (yeah the older one) at f11+ for the depth of field, I find it more than satisfactory.

p47812829-5.jpg


p229021568-5.jpg


p395801233-5.jpg


p1067372086-5.jpg


lloyd

--
“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.” Henry Louis Mencken

Some Dude With a Camera

lloydshell.blogspot.com lloydshell.blogspot.com
lloydshell.zenfolio.com

Zenfolio | Lloyd Shell + Photography

Welcome to my page, I love photography and interacting with others about photography. Please feel free to poke around and look at my stuff.. Thank you for visiting my website. I hope you discover many images you like. If my style of photography doesn't work for you, that is OK too! My primary...
lloydshell.zenfolio.com
WSSA #354

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top