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

Started Aug 7, 2010 | Discussions
jrarsenault Senior Member • Posts: 1,149
Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

I currently have a Sigma 10-20 lens and have enjoyed using this Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) for over a year. It's great for architectural, landscape, seascape and interior shooting.

I've been contemplating the switch to the newer Sigma 8-16. My question is to those who own the Sigma 8-16 and have upgraded or switched from another UWA lens......

1. In your opinion, is it worth the upgrade/switch or is there hardly any difference? Does the extra 2 mm on the wide side make a significant difference?

2. Are you satisfied with the build and optical quality of the newer lens?

3. From which lens did you make the switch (if any)? (i.e. Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20, etc.)

What is the street price of the Sigma 8-16?

Feel free to post any photos from the Sigma 8-16, preferably with EXIF.

Paul De Bra
Paul De Bra Forum Pro • Posts: 12,386
Big difference, but that's true on both ends.

I don't have the Sigma 8-16 (nor will I get one). I did go from the Tokina 12-24 to the Canon 10-22 and the 2mm on the wide end makes a big difference. Between 10 and 8 it must be even bigger. (You don't need the lens to know, you only need to know math.) However, the difference at the long end is also large. 16mm means you can only use the lens for really wide shots. The lens is not usable as a walkaround lens. 20mm is getting much closer to normal. We just went to an open air museum (buildings, interiors, crafts) and I started out with the 17-55IS, thinking I would maybe do most with this fantastic lens. I took a few pictures and then switched to the 10-22 and used it for 90% of the pictures of the day. About 1/3 of the pictures of the entire day were between 17 and 22mm. You should check how many pictures you take between 17 and 20mm to know whether you will miss the long end.

-- 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 E-M5 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +3 more
mrahmo Contributing Member • Posts: 580
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

jrarsenault wrote:

I currently have a Sigma 10-20 lens and have enjoyed using this Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) for over a year. It's great for architectural, landscape, seascape and interior shooting.

I've been contemplating the switch to the newer Sigma 8-16. My question is to those who own the Sigma 8-16 and have upgraded or switched from another UWA lens......

1. In your opinion, is it worth the upgrade/switch or is there hardly any difference? Does the extra 2 mm on the wide side make a significant difference?

yes......2mm is much, 14 degree more than the 10mm

2. Are you satisfied with the build and optical quality of the newer lens?

still trying the optical quality
but the build quality is very goog

3. From which lens did you make the switch (if any)? (i.e. Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20, etc.)

this is my first UWA lens, so i cannot say much in this

What is the street price of the Sigma 8-16?

around 700$

Feel free to post any photos from the Sigma 8-16, preferably with EXIF.

will do very soon

 mrahmo's gear list:mrahmo's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
kymarto Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

I'm your man. I used the Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 for several years, but was finally unsatisfied with the optical performance when doing HDRs. Must have been some decentering causing the right side to go soft in some situations. So finally I switched to the Tokina 11-16, which was a step up in quality in most ways. Three months later Sigma introduced the 8-16, and I bit the bullet and bought that lens. I have not regretted buying the 8-16. It is the best lens of the lot, and definitely a cut above the 10-20, especially as regards edge sharpness and resistance to flare, and also slightly better in contrast.

Make no mistake, those two millimeters make a big difference at the wide end. I sold the old Sigma, but was doing some comparisons at 11 mm between the Sigma 8-16 and the Tokina. Since you are not considering the Tokina I won't post that shot, but here is the Sigma @ 11 and 8mm. These are not carefully focused, only a test of lens flare. Note how good that is compared to the 10-20, and also the quite vast difference in angle between 11 and 8 mm:

Just for comparison, first here are a couple of older shots with the 10-20. The first is non-HDR. Sharpness is pretty good, except for the edges:

Now here is an HDR shot. Note how soft everything gets on the right side of the frame (ignore the grain, which is an HDR processing artifact):

Now here are a couple of HDRs shot at 8mm with the new lens (again ignore the processing artifacts in the room shot--this was just a test):

Finally, here are some other test shots with the Sigma 8-16.

One thing that is quite noteworthy is how well this lens performs wide open. The shot inside the Japanese train station is an example.

The lens has its problems. Quite a curved field, which gives funny focusing issues sometimes, and some vignetting and red CA fringing, especially when defocused; but it is an extremely good lens. Build quality is excellent, as good as or perhaps even a bit better than the 10-20. Same quick HSM focusing. I've noted some small sharpness issues not in the extreme corners, but at the sides of the frame in the middle. But overall it beats the 10-20 with one hand tied behind its back.

One caveat: I tried two of these lenses, and while the performance overall was similar, one had significantly better corner sharpness than the other. Check this out. Unfortunately I didn't have both lenses in the same place at the same time, but compare the sharpness of the road surface between the top and bottom rows here.

HTH,
Toby

OP jrarsenault Senior Member • Posts: 1,149
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

Many thanks to all for your valued opinions and observations. A special thanks to Kymarto for the wonderful photos posted.... they were very helpful.

LSHorwitz1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,502
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

Let me add my compliments to kymarto for the excellent photos above which do a great job of showing the strength of the new Sigma 8-16.

I also switched from a Tokina UWA to the new Sigma because I very much enjoy and appreciate the spectacular additional coverage at 8mm, as well as the additional sharpness.

My Gallery shows some samples and comparisons at the full, original resolution, with very detailed JPEGS which can be directly compared. I find the Sigma 8-16 to be a really superb upgrade from my former Tokina, and also prefer it very much at the ultrawide setting to my Canon 15-85 when the Canon is used at the 15mm end.

The build quality seems rugged and well designed, and I prefer the handling to he Tokina as well. The lack of CA is particularly impressive to me as well.

Larry

OP jrarsenault Senior Member • Posts: 1,149
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

Thanks LSHorwitz1 for your comments and photo. That photo looks quite sharp and vibrant.... I can see why you're happy with this lens.

I've read comments in another forum which stated that if you were to buy this lens (I'm seriously considering it), then you would miss the extra "mm" at the long end. Since this lens only goes to 16 mm, are any of you finding this comment to be relevant? I guess not so for those upgrading/switching from the Tokina, but for those who are switching from Canon or other Sigma's..... any comment?

dopravopat
dopravopat Senior Member • Posts: 1,177
Yes, I would

jrarsenault wrote:

I currently have a Sigma 10-20 lens and have enjoyed using this Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) for over a year. It's great for architectural, landscape, seascape and interior shooting.

I have the same lens.

I've been contemplating the switch to the newer Sigma 8-16. My question is to those who own the Sigma 8-16 and have upgraded or switched from another UWA lens......

1. In your opinion, is it worth the upgrade/switch or is there hardly any difference? Does the extra 2 mm on the wide side make a significant difference?

It makes a considerable difference.

2. Are you satisfied with the build and optical quality of the newer lens?

I hope to find out as soon as possible (lack of money).

3. From which lens did you make the switch (if any)? (i.e. Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20, etc.)

Sigma 10-20, lens I will sell it when getting the 8-16.

What is the street price of the Sigma 8-16?

Around 730€ for Canon mount.

Feel free to post any photos from the Sigma 8-16, preferably with EXIF.

-- hide signature --
 dopravopat's gear list:dopravopat's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 60D Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM +9 more
LSHorwitz1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,502
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

jrarsenault wrote:

Thanks LSHorwitz1 for your comments and photo. That photo looks quite sharp and vibrant.... I can see why you're happy with this lens.

I've read comments in another forum which stated that if you were to buy this lens (I'm seriously considering it), then you would miss the extra "mm" at the long end. Since this lens only goes to 16 mm, are any of you finding this comment to be relevant? I guess not so for those upgrading/switching from the Tokina, but for those who are switching from Canon or other Sigma's..... any comment?

I think there is some truth to the opinion that the "tele" end of the Sigma lens may not reach far enough, but this depends entirely on how you intend to use the lens and also heavily depends on what other lenses you own.

In my case, I already had a 15-85 (Canon) which I carry and use as my "walk-around" lens, and I personally consider the Sigma mostly as a specialty lens exclusively for ultra-wide use. I don't walk around with the 8-16 on the camera in most situations, although I certainly would consider it if I were doing some outdoor landscape work, indoor group photos in tight quarters, etc.

I found with my Tokina 12-24 that I virtually NEVER used it at the more "tele" settings above maybe 16 or 18 mm once I got the 15-85 Canon. Even when I only owned the kit lens from 18-55, the Tokina was mostly put into service below 18 despite reaching from 18-22 and thus overlapping my kit lens.

I view the ultra-wide as having pretty special handling requirements, owing to the way UWA lenses behave in changing perspective. I know that once I put it on my camera I need to use a careful combination of pointing and leveling, and really enjoy getting the benefit of this ultra-ultra-wide 8 mm point of view. I have owned literally dozens of cameras, perhaps over 100, since the 1950's, and I have NEVER seen such a unique and impressive lens in terms of coverage. There really is nothing else like it on the market, and as I said in some earlier posts when I bought the lens on the very first day it became available and began shooting with it: "Sigma hit a home run with this lens. It is utterly awesome". These are not words you normally hear from this gray-haired grand-father........

Larry

dopravopat
dopravopat Senior Member • Posts: 1,177
Using UWA zoom on "long" end

I personally use the Sigma 10-20 mostly at 10 mm, maybe 12 or 14 if I want to frame a scene. I hardly used it at any longer than 17 mm. I prefer to use my old Sigma 18-50 EX, despite its barre distortions at 18 mm. It is two stops brigter than the 10-20 at the "long" end.
--
Erik
http://jalbum.net/users/eziak

 dopravopat's gear list:dopravopat's gear list
Canon EOS 30D Canon EOS 60D Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM +9 more
martin brech Regular Member • Posts: 255
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

Do people using the 8-16 miss the possibility to put a polarizer on the lens?

Cuz for me it seems to be a drawback. I never had the opportunity to shoot with a UWA but I use the polarizer a lot when shooting landscapes with the 17-55. I fear regretting the possibility to use it if I buy the 8-16

thank you!
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vcx123456/

LSHorwitz1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,502
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

Polarizers will not work on a lens which has such a wide angle of coverage, since the polarization changes its phase / angle over the huge field of view seen by the 8mm focal length.

Larry

Dan_168 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,121
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

Yes, Yes & yes.

For my T2i, I am getting the 8-16, that will go with my 18-55 kit lens for my light hiking kit when photography is not the top priority and don't feel like bring the D3, 1DS2 or 1D2, none of those 3 are small and light especially when paired with those big lenses like 14-24G 24-70G.......

The 8-16 is not exactly a 14-24G killer but it doesn't weight 1 Kg either, and only cost about 1/3, so it definitely have its place in my hiking bag. btw, I owned both Canon 10-22 and used it with the 20D and Sigma 10-20 used on my D300 before, never like them but have no better alternatives at that time, and they are all sold now. so far from all the sample I have seen, the 8-16 seems to be a winner and likely will stay for a while.

martin brech Regular Member • Posts: 255
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

Polarizers will not work on a lens which has such a wide angle of coverage, since the polarization changes its phase / angle over the huge field of view seen by the 8mm focal length.

Larry

thank you. Do you think that for a 10mm lens polarizer are also useless?
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vcx123456/

Noopz Regular Member • Posts: 381
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

100% no to that.

I would say my sigma 10-20 without a CPL is useless.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29810686@N03/

Peter Kwok
Peter Kwok Senior Member • Posts: 2,405
I started with Canon 10-22 and stay with it

I love the Canon 10-22 for its flexibility and consistency.

I almost use it exclusively at 10mm. However, on a recent trip to Japan, my 17-55IS fogged up after shooting in the rain. For the rest of the day, I was left with my 10-22 and the 70-200 f4 IS. Being 22mm on the long end, it is almost good enough for general shots.

1/100s f/6.3 at 22mm iso400

Click here for more. You can see how I covered a site with this lens only.
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok/jap10asakusa
--
Peter Kwok
http://www.pbase.com/peterkwok
WYSIWYG - If you don't like what you get, try to see differently.

 Peter Kwok's gear list:Peter Kwok's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EOS 5DS Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +3 more
LSHorwitz1 Senior Member • Posts: 2,502
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

martin brech wrote:

LSHorwitz1 wrote:

Polarizers will not work on a lens which has such a wide angle of coverage, since the polarization changes its phase / angle over the huge field of view seen by the 8mm focal length.

Larry

thank you. Do you think that for a 10mm lens polarizer are also useless?
--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vcx123456/

I really don't know.

I have personally used polarizers only on lenses which are not ultra-wide, but have seen other comments and opinions stating that 8mm is beyond any constant polarizarization.

I would imagine that the specific subject makes a very big difference. An 8mm wide shot of ocean, beach, and sky lit by the sun near sunset at the horizon would be a far different situation from a tall skyscraper shot with noon-day sun overhead lighting.

The 8mm coverage is truly beyond anything I have encountered, and it is so easy to get my shoes into a shot if I am not careful. It really takes some getting used to, and I never have really experimented much with circular polarizers. I am certainly interested to hear what others have learned and can offer on this topic.

Larry

CrewDog Forum Member • Posts: 62
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

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

viking79
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,137
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

jrarsenault wrote:

I currently have a Sigma 10-20 lens and have enjoyed using this Ultra Wide Angle (UWA) for over a year. It's great for architectural, landscape, seascape and interior shooting.

I've been contemplating the switch to the newer Sigma 8-16. My question is to those who own the Sigma 8-16 and have upgraded or switched from another UWA lens......

1. In your opinion, is it worth the upgrade/switch or is there hardly any difference? Does the extra 2 mm on the wide side make a significant difference?

It is a lot wider.

2. Are you satisfied with the build and optical quality of the newer lens?

It is better than the 10-20mm f/4-5.6. Mostly metal.

3. From which lens did you make the switch (if any)? (i.e. Canon 10-22, Tokina 11-16, Sigma 10-20, etc.)

I have used the 10-20mm and 11-16mm, but not a lot. I currently didn't have an UWA.

What is the street price of the Sigma 8-16?

Nearly $700.

Feel free to post any photos from the Sigma 8-16, preferably with EXIF.

See my full review:
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=124

(this review was done using a Pentax, but the characteristics of the lens will be the same except for the 2 bugs I point out with the Pentax not registering focal length less than 10mm and the slow LiveView AF (I don't know how those will be on Canon)).

Eric
--
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://viking79.blogspot.com/ (Weekly)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
OP jrarsenault Senior Member • Posts: 1,149
Re: Sigma 10-20 to Sigma 8-16.... Would you, Could you, Should you?

viking79 wrote:

See my full review:
http://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=124

(this review was done using a Pentax, but the characteristics of the lens will be the same except for the 2 bugs I point out with the Pentax not registering focal length less than 10mm and the slow LiveView AF (I don't know how those will be on Canon)).

Eric
--

Eric,

Excellent review! Thanks for sharing it with us! You still seem to favour the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 for some characteristics. If you had a choice of only ONE lens in your kit.... which would it be?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads