mdavidp
Veteran Member
Sigma does a good job with the 8-16mm.
If you do landscapes with WA lenses the 10-20mm. and 8-16mm. can be wonderful together.
Mike P
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
SDq and the 8-16mm.
- Thread starter mdavidp
- Start date
Sigma does a good job with the 8-16mm.
If you do landscapes with WA lenses the 10-20mm. and 8-16mm. can be wonderful together.
Mike P
J
Jozef M
Guest
At the edges, imo. the lens is less sharp, center is good.
Jozef.
Jozef.
mdavidp
Veteran Member
The 18-35mm. is also a terrific lens.
I personally love the edge to edge sharpness I get with both my 8-16 and 10-20mm.
I don't think you can find any comparable quality lens from, Nikon, Canon or Pentax.
M P
PS and of course the finest sensor.
I personally love the edge to edge sharpness I get with both my 8-16 and 10-20mm.
I don't think you can find any comparable quality lens from, Nikon, Canon or Pentax.
M P
PS and of course the finest sensor.
H
harry
Guest
All is great, except the sky. Wish Sigma has a better handle on smoother sky, even at ISO100.
Do you ever shoot the sd Q in low res and, if so, how do blue skies look from a noise POV? In the first shot, it's slightly bothersome to a pedant like myself:
Even though the S/N ratio is about 22 (mean/sdev) it's quite visible for some reason.
This post is not a Quattro-bash and I am making no comparison with other models! Neither is it a comment on the skill of the Shooter. My interest is more toward the possible use of an sd to gain the advantages of live view, etc.
--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted
Even though the S/N ratio is about 22 (mean/sdev) it's quite visible for some reason.
This post is not a Quattro-bash and I am making no comparison with other models! Neither is it a comment on the skill of the Shooter. My interest is more toward the possible use of an sd to gain the advantages of live view, etc.
--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted
Last edited:
Greytop
Active member
Looks like you have a good copy of the 8-16, at least yours appears to be consistent in all the corners and boarders.
Sad to say my new 8-16 was returned for a refund recently because there was softness in the top left corner at 8mm (@ f/8), it also had some odd softness in the lower right quadrant at near to 16mm. QA issues I suspect, I opted to pass on a replacement.
I would be interested to see images with your 10-20 f/3.5 with the sd Quattro.
Sad to say my new 8-16 was returned for a refund recently because there was softness in the top left corner at 8mm (@ f/8), it also had some odd softness in the lower right quadrant at near to 16mm. QA issues I suspect, I opted to pass on a replacement.
I would be interested to see images with your 10-20 f/3.5 with the sd Quattro.
mdavidp
Veteran Member
The 10-20mm. 3.5 is a bit soft at the edges at 10mm. on the SDQ.
Better corner results on the SD1M.
Mike P
Better corner results on the SD1M.
Mike P
Carl Schofield
Veteran Member
I have been quite pleased with the performance of my 8-16 on the sdQ. Sharp across the frame with minimal distortion.
--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
I was thinking of the overlap of the 8-16 and the 10-20. There is no overlap with the 8-16 and the 18-35 Art.
I beg to differ. The Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G is an absolutely stellar lens that is better than most wide primes.
SD1M vs sdQ:
SD1 Merrill high res: top, sd Quattro high res: bottom.
Signal-to-Noise ratios:
SD1M Merrill, 48.
sd Quattro, 19.
Or, we could play "guess the camera" ;-)
400% tells the tale . .
Forget the question, the difference is far too much to be eliminated by binning!
--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted
Last edited:
J
Jozef M
Guest
This Q noise looks terrible, isn't there a way to process this more cleanly?
Jozef
SD1M vs sdQ:
Signal-to-Noise ratios:
SD1M Merrill, 48.
sd Quattro, 19.
Or, we could play "guess the camera" ;-)
400% tells the tale . .
Forget the question, the difference is far too much to be eliminated by binning!
--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted
Jozef
SD1M vs sdQ:
Signal-to-Noise ratios:
SD1M Merrill, 48.
sd Quattro, 19.
Or, we could play "guess the camera" ;-)
400% tells the tale . .
Forget the question, the difference is far too much to be eliminated by binning!
--
"What we've got hyah is Failyah to Communicate": 'Cool Hand Luke' 1967.
Ted
Sorry, I can't answer the question because I've never used a Q of any kind.
Please bear in mind that I have no idea how the Q image in my comparison was processed. The Merrill was out of SPP with no adjustments at all, including "zero" sharpening (we all know what that means :-( ).
Others here have produced and posted less noisy Q pictures. How they did it, I don't know, and I won't comment further on Q noise here - for fear of setting off another avalanche of claim and counter-claim, ;-)
mdavidp
Veteran Member
Some years ago I owned the Nikon 14-24mm. and could never achieve the edge sharpness
I get with either the Sigma 8-16mm., 10-20mm., or 18-35mm.
But, I used it with a FF camera.
Mike P
I get with either the Sigma 8-16mm., 10-20mm., or 18-35mm.
But, I used it with a FF camera.
Mike P
Hello Carl:I have been quite pleased with the performance of my 8-16 on the sdQ. Sharp across the frame with minimal distortion.
--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
Thanks for sharing your photo, nicely done.
Quick question(s)?
According to the sigma's website, offering their own "Compatibility List" of lenses, to being use on the SD Quattro - it mentions that the Sigma 8-16 lens, "MAY NOT" perform using AF, accurately.?
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-sd-quattro-users-june-2016
But, are you noticing any problems?
Also, do you have other "non-compatible lenses" (per se) of the "recommendations from Sigma, that work reasonably well also on the SD Quattro?
Thanks for your time,
Have a nice day / evening -
Ed
~ ~ ~
Hello Mike P:
Sigma does a good job with the 8-16mm.
If you do landscapes with WA lenses the 10-20mm. and 8-16mm. can be wonderful together.
Mike P
Thanks for sharing your photo, nicely done.
Quick question(s)?
According to the sigma's website, offering their own "Compatibility List" of lenses, to being use on the SD Quattro - it mentions that the Sigma 8-16 lens, "MAY NOT" perform using AF, accurately.?
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-sd-quattro-users-june-2016
But, are you noticing any problems?
Also, do you have other "non-compatible lenses" (per se) of the "recommendations from Sigma, that work reasonably well also on the SD Quattro?
Thanks for your time,
Have a nice day / evening -
Ed
~ ~ ~
Carl Schofield
Veteran Member
The 8-16 works well for me, but there is occasional hesitation when auto focusing (particularly in portrait orientation). Seems to focus accurately. I also use the 18-35, 30mm, and the 70mm macro (the latter does not AF well at all and I use it only with MF).Hello Carl:I have been quite pleased with the performance of my 8-16 on the sdQ. Sharp across the frame with minimal distortion.
--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
Thanks for sharing your photo, nicely done.
Quick question(s)?
According to the sigma's website, offering their own "Compatibility List" of lenses, to being use on the SD Quattro - it mentions that the Sigma 8-16 lens, "MAY NOT" perform using AF, accurately.?
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-sd-quattro-users-june-2016
But, are you noticing any problems?
Also, do you have other "non-compatible lenses" (per se) of the "recommendations from Sigma, that work reasonably well also on the SD Quattro?
Thanks for your time,
Have a nice day / evening -
Ed
~ ~ ~
--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
Thanks Carl !The 8-16 works well for me, but there is occasional hesitation when auto focusing (particularly in portrait orientation). Seems to focus accurately. I also use the 18-35, 30mm, and the 70mm macro (the latter does not AF well at all and I use it only with MF).Hello Carl:I have been quite pleased with the performance of my 8-16 on the sdQ. Sharp across the frame with minimal distortion.
--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
Thanks for sharing your photo, nicely done.
Quick question(s)?
According to the sigma's website, offering their own "Compatibility List" of lenses, to being use on the SD Quattro - it mentions that the Sigma 8-16 lens, "MAY NOT" perform using AF, accurately.?
https://www.sigmaphoto.com/article/sigma-sd-quattro-users-june-2016
But, are you noticing any problems?
Also, do you have other "non-compatible lenses" (per se) of the "recommendations from Sigma, that work reasonably well also on the SD Quattro?
Thanks for your time,
Have a nice day / evening -
Ed
~ ~ ~
--
Carl
Website: http://www.schophoto.com/gallery/
That sounds pretty promising then, I do appreciate your reply...
mdavidp
Veteran Member
Ed,
My lens focuses fine with just a bit of hesitation.
Generally I MF ALL my Sigma lenses which work very well with the help
of Focus Peaking.
In fact every lens does AF, but not as quickly as the ART series.
Mike P
My lens focuses fine with just a bit of hesitation.
Generally I MF ALL my Sigma lenses which work very well with the help
of Focus Peaking.
In fact every lens does AF, but not as quickly as the ART series.
Mike P
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum