Sigma 8-16mm APS-C Lens
…but is it any good?!
Sigma announced the release of their new “Widest on the aps-c market” Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM FLD AF Ultra Wide Zoom Lens at PMA this year, and below you will find the press release if you’re interested in such things… What we don’t have just yet is access to this lens to try it out and see if it is indeed any good… (update from Darren: we’re hoping to get one from Sigma in the coming weeks).
Update: this lens is available for Pre-order at Amazon for $699 USD in the following mounts:
Sigma 8-16mm APS-C Lens PRESS RELEASE
Ronkonkoma, NY, April 23, 2010 – Sigma Corporation of America (www.sigmaphoto.com), a leading researcher, developer, manufacturer and service provider of some of the world’s most impressive lines of lenses, cameras and flashes, has announced that its new, 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens, which incorporates the company’s new “F” Low Dispersion (FLD) lens glass, is now available.
Wide, You want Wide?
This rectilinear lens, which was first introduced at PMA 2010 in February, is the widest angle zoom lens on the market today. The 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM is designed specifically for APS-C size image sensors and has an equivalent angle of view of a 12-24mm lens when used on digital cameras of that sensor size. The lens is currently available in Canon mount at all authorized Sigma dealers for the MSRP of $1,100, and it will be available in Sigma, Nikon, Sony and Pentax mounts in the coming weeks.
“As the manufacturer of the first ultra wide angle lens, there are a number of reasons why we are incredibly excited about the arrival of this lens. The fact that it produces a wide-angle view of nearly 121.2 degrees, depending on what camera you are shooting with, is definitely at the top of that list,” said Mark Amir-Hamzeh, general manager of Sigma Corporation of America. “Another feature that we are extremely proud of is this lens’ use of our company’s new FLD glass, which boasts performance equal to fluorite glass, but without the added weight.”
FLD glass is the highest level, low dispersion glass available with extremely high light transmission. With a performance equal to fluorite glass, this optical glass has a low refractive index and low dispersion compared to current optical glass. It also benefits from high anomalous dispersion. These characteristics offer excellent correction for residual chromatic aberration (secondary spectrum), which cannot be corrected by ordinary optical glass and ensures high-definition and high-contrast images.
In addition to having four elements of the FLD glass, the 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM also offers one hybrid aspherical lens and two glass mold elements for excellent correction of distortion and astigmatism. It incorporates an inner focusing system to produce high-definition images throughout the entire zoom range, and has Super Multi-Layer Coating to reduce flare and ghosting with superior peripheral brightness to produce high-contrast images. The lens’ Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) provides quiet and high-speed auto focus, as well as full-time manual focus capability.
The 8-16mm F4.5-5.6 DC HSM has a minimum focusing distance of 9.4 inches throughout the entire zoom range to create exaggerated perspectives and help photographers emphasize the subject. Its compact construction measures up to an overall length of 4.2 inches and a maximum diameter of 2.9 inches.
PRESS RELEASE ENDS
So, Is it any good? Well, as I mentioned, we don’t have one as yet, but we’re looking to get one in and check it out! Meanwhile, what’s your opinion, or, even better, if you DO have this lens – comment and let us know what you think, or better still, email some images and we’ll put them up here for you!
– Sime
38 Responses to “Sigma 8-16mm APS-C Lens” - Add Yours
April 28th, 2010 at 6:09 am
It all depends on price. If they price it cheaper than the Canon 10-22, then it’s a viable product. If they price it higher, I don’t think people will take it seriously.
The reason for this is that it’s an cropped-sensor lens. And I honestly believe their is a glass ceiling to what people will spend on a cropped lens.
That being said, if this was a full frame lens, they could easily charge $2000 for it.
April 28th, 2010 at 6:21 am
And again the Olympus E-cameras are left out. Not a big loss usually, but when it comes to super wide angles, there isn’t much going for us E-shooters.
April 28th, 2010 at 6:35 am
Let me know if you need someone to test out the Pentax mount version.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:02 am
I’m not sure where they’re getting that it’s the first 8mm lens for APS-C. Samyang has been making one for a bit:
http://www.google.com/products?q=samyang+8mm&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=oF7XS-LqFoju8wSiq-CDBw&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQrQQwAA
April 28th, 2010 at 8:06 am
Jacob…
Key word is Zoom
“This rectilinear lens, which was first introduced at PMA 2010 in February, is the widest angle zoom lens on the market today.”
April 28th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Pity it’s so slow.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:10 am
The other, perhaps more important question, is would you go sell your existing Sigma 10-20mm lens to purchase this one? And pay almost twice as much to get an additional 2 mm. I realize 2mm is a fair bit on the wide end. But that better be a heck of a 2 mm
I find that I use my 10-20mm lens rarely, but really enjoy it when I do use it. And, you guessed it, there is very pretty much nothing that would convince me to pay more to replace it.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:29 am
I’m pretty happy with my 12-24mm Sigma DG HSM for EF lens mounted on a full frame sensor (5D Mark II).
If you consider that with the 1.6x crop factor, 8mm on an APS-C sensor works out to 12.8mm, so the claim that 8mm EF-S is the “widest zoom on the market today” is kinda silly.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I read about this new lens a few weeks back, and while it certainly grabs my interest, I’d really want to try one out for a day or so before buying. I’ve been using the sigma 10-20mm for nearly 2 years on my canon 350d and more recently on my 7D, and as I’ve improved I’ve started to find it lacking in quality. Beyond the distortion you might expect from a lens this wide there is noticeable softness around the edges.
This new lens may not suffer from the same issues, but still, the amount of correction needed for the lens distortion of a 8mm…..
April 28th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Sime:
I guess i read the lines ““Widest on the aps-c market” and “As the manufacturer of the first ultra wide angle lens…”, and stopped there!
April 28th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Yes, hard to have an opinion on this lens until some sample shots are available. Will the barrel distortion be out of control? Is it useful at all off of a tripod? etc…
April 28th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
whooooaaaa! drooling over it. is it any good compared to Sigma 10-20mm HSM?
April 28th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
The only thing I see negative here with respect to Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is the not to open aperture. f4.5-5.6 is pretty stopped down. I know 3mm at ultra wide makes a lot of difference, but having f2.8 in Tokina’s lens is a big plus IMHO
April 28th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
IMHO it will have for sure a lot of softness when wide open, not to forget about CA and barrel distortion. If it wouldn’t have all that in a big number, then it would be for sure much less cheaper.
April 29th, 2010 at 1:53 am
I just don’t understand it. If you’re willing to pay $1,100 for a lens, which pretty much makes you, at the very least, a serious photography enthusiast, why on earth would you buy an EF-S lens with that kind of money, when you know it will be worthless to you the moment you upgrade to a real professional full frame sensor DSLR. To put this in perspective, the Canon 5D mark II can be had for under $2500.
Am I missing something?
April 29th, 2010 at 3:10 am
interesting to bad I can not use it, I have 1.3 sensor – canon 1d mark 2, 3 and 4. it looks however to be a great buy considering the angle it offers.
April 29th, 2010 at 3:13 am
I’d love to give this lens a try.. Aperture doesn’t stop me much unless I’m trying something real different with a wide angle! I know 4.5-5.6 is slow, but for a wide zoom??? I think it’s decent!
April 30th, 2010 at 3:26 am
Mine is pre-ordered. If the quality matches that of even the 10-20mm it will be worth it. I also have the Tokina 11-16mm but it has different uses than this lens will have.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
@brandon green: It’s not $1100, it’s under $700. Pop that on a Rebel and you’ve got practically the same focal width as your Sigma 12-24 on a 5DM2 for about 1/4 the cost. Will the quality be the same? Probably not, but not everyone has the bucks to blow like you do but there are a lot of enthusiasts who would like to try shooting that wide. Go have fun with your full frame kit and leave us crop dusters alone.
April 30th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
Go to Adorama if you don’t believe it’s under $700. Maybe a little over on ebay.
April 30th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
@Prateek: Speed isn’t everything in the UWA category, it depends on what you want to do with it. Landscape shots are one very popular use for UWAs and if that’s what you’re using it for, a fast lens isn’t that important. Chances are, you’ve got your stuff mounted on a tripod and aperture narrowed down to about 11-22. But for the landscape artist, those 3mm might make a difference. The 2.8 of the Tokina 116 comes in handy when you’re shooting indoors with available light or underwater. It might also help out in portraiture when you want to throw out the background. I would prefer the versatility of the Tokina myself but the additional width of the new Sigma UWA does present some interesting possibilities. Like Jason Collin, I’m looking forward to a review on how well it controls distortion.
April 30th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Yet another rip of for the UK… where this lens is being offered for £6-700, rather than the £450 it costs in the US from Amazon or Adorama…
Hooray for duty/tax etc.
(
May 1st, 2010 at 3:20 am
@Eeps – I was going by the article info in the article here, which says $1100 MSRP. Even at the $700 you state, that is no where near 1/4 the cost of my 12-24mm, which I paid $850 for. If you’re including our camera bodies in the equation, that’s just silly. If you’re into photography long enough, you’ll realize that the camera body itself is the most temporary part of the entire DSLR system.
Bottom line – if you absolutely know 100% that you’re never going to move beyond the APS-C sized sensor, then by all means, stock up on EF-S lenses. But I have to warn you, one day (sooner than you might imagine) Canon will offer full frame sensors on their Prosumer line (Rebels and the like), and then you’re investment in EF-S will hold you back.
May 1st, 2010 at 12:16 pm
@brandon green – Yes, I did include the cost of the camera bodies. The issue was the focal width on a full frame sensor so I thought the price of the body was relevant. The most affordable full frame cameras right now are used 5Ds and 1DSs. They still go for around $1k. In the meantime, there is a growing market of budding DSLR enthusiasts who would like to shoot wide, but don’t care that much for the IQ advantage of full frame (since most of us don’t really go beyond the monitor of our computers). That’s why entry level cameras are the biggest selling sector of the market.
Sigma is filling a need. There are still a lot of photogs out there who don’t have UWAs. By offering the widest UWA for a crop, they’re trying to get an edge on the competition. For starting enthusiasts, it’s actually more silly to plunk down $1850 (full frame camera + 12-24 lens) when you could shoot that wide for $700. There’s no guarantee that one will move on to full frame, and even if one does, it’s much easier to sell stuff for crops because of the bigger market.
As for full frame sensors on Rebels, I doubt it will be anytime soon. There’s a reason it took Nikon and Sony a while to put out full frames. There’s just not that big enough a market demanding full frames. And as long as the crop market remains as robust as it is now, I don’t see any reason for the manufacturers to start putting full frames in entry level cameras. They already have cameras for the pros (Canon1DS/Nikon3Ds) and serious enthusiasts (5D/D700). There’s no pressing need to put full frames into entry level unless one of the minor players decides to do something crazy, like putting them inside their entry level cams and keeping the price low (how I wish). If Pentax or Sony did that, then maybe Canikon would follow. Til then, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting.
Bottom line – even if your a crop user who thinks he’ll move on to full frames later on, there’s no reason to spend that much now. If you’re not ready… wait. You can shoot wide NOW. For less than $700. And if you decide full frames are indeed for you, you can always sell it. There’s a huge 2nd hand market for lenses because most photogs take care of them. Half my lenses were acquired 2nd hand. There’s no reason to deny yourself the thrill of shooting as wide as you can. 4mm is a big difference on the wide end.
p.s. I’m not saying we should all go out and buy this lens. Not everyone needs to shoot this wide and I’d rather wait for a review first. What I am saying is that there’s no need to be calling anyone silly. Not everyone takes photography as seriously as you do.
May 1st, 2010 at 12:31 pm
On a Canon crop, the difference between a 12-24 and a 8-16 should come out to 6.4mm on the wide end [12x1.6 (19.2) - 8x1.6 (12.8)]. That could be the difference between capturing your hotel room in 1 shot instead of 2. LOL
May 1st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
@eeps
I apologize, as it seems pretty clear I’ve managed to offended you. What I was suggesting is silly is factoring in camera body cost when trying to compare the lenses. I did not mean to suggest that you yourself are a generally silly individual. Whether this is or is not the case, I render no judgment.
I do have to take issue with your assertion that most prosumer level DSLR owners don’t really go beyond the monitor of their computers. Most of the entry level DSLR’s nowadays are 10+ megapixel, whereas a decent high res monitor at full 1080p is only about 2 megapixel, I just have serious doubts that your experience in this regard is as common as you suggest. Perhaps I am the exception as you indicated, but when I ran my Rebel XTi through the ringer for 3 years, even at the beginning I was zooming in to 100% to check for motion blur and focus at the pixel level. Intro DSLR or not, that’s a good chunk of money to be spending on pixels you have no interest in looking at.
I think you severely underestimate the speed at which the photo sensor technology is being developed, which is the only substantive limiting factor in what the major DSLR manufacturers put in their entry level cameras. The idea that the market demand isn’t big enough is simply not accurate. 35mm has been the mainstay in frame size for photography since George Eastman started supplying film in that size in 1892. If Canon could have, they absolutely would have made their first DSLR a full 35mm frame to make sure the people buying it could use all the lenses they already had with exactly the same experience in FOV, and then we never would have had the EF-S standard to begin with.
What I suspect is that when Canon does drop a prosumer priced full frame DSLR on the market, they are going to phase out their EF-S line of lenses and cameras, and over the following years as people’s cameras are dying and becoming obsolete, they are going to be buying full frame DSLR’s. That mass exodus is going to drive the demand for, and thus the resale value of, the EF-S lenses through the floor.
I’m not trying to pass judgment here, I totally understand the excitement surrounding UWA photography and I completely understand why people who already own an APS-C size sensor would want the quick fix. For a time I too considered grabbing up either an 8mm or a 10mm EF-S (I can’t remember which now) but for the various reasons I mentioned, I waited; and I’m here to say that looking back, I don’t regret that decision at all. So my words are simply cautionary; if you’ve really considered it and really think it’s worth it, go for it. But do so with the understanding that your savings now may well result in hardship later.
May 1st, 2010 at 9:33 pm
No offense taken, though I admit I may have sounded that way lol. While I admire your optimism regarding the future of full frame sensors, I’m afraid I do not share it. And while I do hope you are right, I just don’t see it happening anytime soon. That being said, these are merely opinions and, unless either of us has the ability to see into the future, should just be treated as ramblings of madmen lol
May 4th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Brandon,
I think you have some figures a bit distorted: 35mm has been around since the late 1890s, but was not popularized until the 1930s and 1940s. Even well into the ’50s, magazines demanded 2-1/4 square transparencies from photographers. By the late ’50s, though, the Japanese were rolling into areas once totally occupied by European camera makers. That helped push 35mm bodies and lenses down into an area affordable by more people. Still, there are a couple of magazines today that won’t accept 35mm work!
As for the ever-increasing speed with which sensor technology is developing, it gets a big, “Yeah, maybe.” The problem has never been the 35mm frame technology. It has been the number of perfect slices available from the loaf, the production cost, in other words. Sony offers the least expensive 35mm frame camera today, but it appears to me to be languishing. The market has yet to respond with joy, though that may be more related to the timing of the release, with today’s recession. It’s hard to tell without delving more deeply into the matter than I am interested in doing. But I do not see a need for better sensor technology as a limiting factor. What is needed is a lower cost way of producing large sensors that are equal in quality to APS-C sensors.
There are a number of other factors that will keep 35mm frame sensors close to the sidelines for the average photographer for some time. Instead of cost of the body, we have cost of the lens. Glass MUST be better to produce equal quality shots edge-to-edge from a larger system. If it isn’t, the advantages are instantly gone. Better glass means two things: more weight and more cost. The lens that costs me $1,000 for my APS-C DSLR is apt to cost 50% more for a 35mm frame camera. It will also be many grams heavier.
Currently, at least in my opinion, APS-C is the clear winner. It will remain so for a good time yet, and, possibly, forever. With film, APS was a late development that basically foundered, but with early sensor technology, it because a brilliant stroke, because the smaller sensor allowed manufacturers to keep prices more in line with sanity.
Prices are high. Or are they? In 1971 or 1972, I paid $415 for a Canon F1, the original mechanical film version. That remains the best basic camera I’ve ever owned. But if you convert that $415 into today’s dollars, you might be surprised: I checked it out a couple of years ago, and it was about $2,200 in today’s money. It is a good idea to think of all the features that camera did NOT have, compared to today’s most basic DSLR. The meter was superb, and the slide off changeable focus screen was a wonder, but to cover motocross races, I had to buy a motor drive (about $300) and a bulk back (50′ back was, I seem to recall, another $300, maybe $350). That gave me about 3.5 fps, for 350 frames. If I needed more than 350 frames, I had to have a changing bag with me. The total cost, in 2010 money, was probably about $6,500.
Oh, yeah. No autofocus. That usually meant with fast action that I’d lose at least five shots in 20. Even then, it felt heavy. I have no memory of the actual weight of the outfit, but 10-12 pounds wouldn’t surprise me a bit whereas any APS-C 3.5 FPS capable DSLR is apt to be well under 1-1/2 pounds. Even the top of the line Canon 35mm only goes a bit over two pounds.
I don’t think APS-C is the best of all possible worlds, as the 35mm frame size IS better. It’s just too durned costly for too many people these days, and I doubt manufacturing costs for sensors are going to drop all that much for another five to ten years.
May 5th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Is this compatible with the D300s?
May 6th, 2010 at 4:16 am
@Charlie Self
I certainly did, for the sake of brevity, drastically oversimplify the history of the 35mm frame size, yes. The point I was making is that the 35mm standard clearly takes precedent over any digital crop standard.
“The problem has never been the 35mm frame technology. It has been the number of perfect slices available from the loaf, the production cost, in other words”
The problem you’re referring to is to be improved and/or eliminated by… better technology. So if the problem isn’t the technology.. I guess I’m not sure what it is that you’re trying to say by correcting me on this point.
“What is needed is a lower cost way of producing large sensors that are equal in quality to APS-C sensors.”
Full size sensors, at least in Canon’s lineup, are at least equal to the quality of APS-C sensors. The 5D Mark II sensor, for example, preforms so well in low light, and overall for that matter, independent film makers are buying it in droves to shoot their films using. Say what you want about indie films, the season finale for the TV show “House” was shot using the 5D Mark II. I guess what I’m saying is that I just don’t understand where you got this idea that full size sensors somehow need to rise up to the quality standards of APS-C.
You’re right that with the smaller sensor size, you can get away with less (smaller) glass, as the image that the lens is projecting doesn’t need to be as large, however that also means the glass needs to be even more precise to resolve the same pixel detail in the now smaller projected image. (Same megapixel in a smaller area = higher density = more demands on the glass for precision) Though it may weigh significantly less, the prices I’ve seen just don’t seem to translate as dramatically as you suggest for the same optical quality. For example, my Sigma 12-24 EF lens, which is directly comparable to this very lens featured in the article here, cost me $850 brand new, compared to $700 for this EF-S lens.
I can’t say that I have some magic ability to predict the development of technology, or price points on varying sensor size cameras, but I have to believe that Canon, who is – as I understand it – the front-runner of the DSLR’s, probably has some idea as to their intentions moving forward. If Canon really felt that EF-S lenses had a future, I dare say there’d be more than 8 of them in their entire current EOS lens lineup. To put this in perspective, out of their current lineup of 60 different lenses, only 8 of them are EF-S.
I’m not trying in any way to de-legitimize crop sensors as being a perfectly valid tool, even for professional level photography, I just think it’s a valid point to make that one should be wary of the future with regard to keeping lenses in their set that are going to work for them for the long haul. This isn’t as important with standard focal lengths, as great EF alternatives are available, but for the extreme wide angle like this lens satisfies, you’re really stuck with EF-S for crop sensor cameras. All I’m saying is that it’s a consideration.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:43 am
““What is needed is a lower cost way of producing large sensors that are equal in quality to APS-C sensors.”
Full size sensors, at least in Canon’s lineup, are at least equal to the quality of APS-C sensors. The 5D Mark II sensor, for example, preforms so well in low light, and overall for that matter, independent film makers are buying it in droves to shoot their films using. Say what you want about indie films, the season finale for the TV show “House” was shot using the 5D Mark II. I guess what I’m saying is that I just don’t understand where you got this idea that full size sensors somehow need to rise up to the quality standards of APS-C.”
Please note the prime mover in my sentence: lower cost. There is no doubt the sensor in the Canon 5D Mark II is superb, as is the camera. The 5D is also nearly four times the cost of anything that might be considered a low cost pro model. When technology manages to drop full-frame sensor costs so that a full-frame camera costs about 20% of the the 5D Mark II does, then full frame may overcome the other objections, the weight, the size and the higher cost, and heavier, glass and similar fun things.
Until Canon can put such a camera in the hands of people for about $1,250, then full frame is going to stay where it is, unless Sony starts gaining some speed. Right now, though, the Nikon D700 seems to be of major interest to a number of semi-pro shooters I now. Canon hasn’t moved much since ’08. I expect they will this fall, though.
May 6th, 2010 at 10:10 am
“Until Canon can put such a camera in the hands of people for about $1,250, then full frame is going to stay where it is”
I could not agree more; I guess I’m just more optimistic that this is going to happen sooner rather than later. I know this is oversimplifying things, but in essence if they simply replaced the sensor in the XSi (or whatever their current model entry level dslr is) with a full frame sensor, kept the cheap plastic body and obviously replaced the EF-S mount with just an EF mount, they’d really only have to charge a premium to cover the extra cost of the FF sensor. For the moment that probably makes doing so expensive enough that the sales they predict from it likely don’t merit creating that new line to begin with. But if my thinking isn’t too far off, then that’s only going to be the case until they can bring the sensor cost difference between the FF and crop size sensor down. It doesn’t even have to be a great quality sensor, just no worse than the ones they’re using now for their entry level dslr’s.
Maybe I’m just really off base, and actually one of the very few people who care about the expanded size and the advantages it brings. If that’s the case, you’re probably right about it not happening any time soon. I hope you’re wrong though, I think the community as a whole would benefit from a more unified format. Of course, I also think it’d be great if Canon and Nikon lenses/mounts were fully interchangeable, so I guess I’m a bit of a dreamer
Anyway, great discussion!
May 6th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Interchangeable lens mounts will never happen: the money determines that. I very much doubt, with Canon developing and building its own sensors, that the concept of “full frame” is a unified one. Sizes and sensitivities will always be different, even if by only a tiny amount.
Sony has already gone part way to the cheaper body/35mm sensor goal. I don’t know how well it’s doing, but the camera has some superb features, as well as some that just ain’t so great. It would actually suit my style of working pretty well, but the need to replace a decade long collection of glass as well as a couple of bodies means that won’t happen, unless I hit the lottery. That’s the sticking point with a great many people. The initial investment is seldom just the body’s price. Canon also offers an incredible service system for pros, the short term rental market is flooded with Canon gear and so on. A company like Sony needs immense resources to fight that entrenched type of marketing that isn’t even really seen as marketing, but as customer service. I think they know it, and know it will take many years. In that time, the actual sensors are going to change a lot. I want to hang around to see as many as I can, for sure.
May 6th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
FWIW I believe we’re agreed that we all wish full frame sensors would come to entry level cameras soon. The point of contention is whether this lens is worth purchasing or would it be rendered obsolete sooner than we think. Charlie and I think not. While I am still waiting on reviews on the quality of this lens, I am not ready to give up on it out of fear that the APS-C format is going to disappear anytime soon. The major players would be crazy to kill off their cash cow when the smaller players have not yet shown any inclination to push them off their perch.
As far as the lens is concerned, another question I’d like answered is if it would work with a full frame. I believe that one of the major problems of using EF-S type lenses with full frames is vignetting. However, in some lenses, zooming in has solved this problem. Take for example the Tokina 11-16. While it is an EF-S type lens, zooming in to 15 or 16mm makes it usable with FF without the vignetting issue. Since the new Sigma lens reaches 16mm too, I was wondering whether zooming in to 16mm would solve the possible vignetting issue.
@albert david – the Nikon D300s uses a crop sensor. The Sigma 8-16 should work with it. But I dunno if they’ve come out with that mount. As far as I know, only the Canon mount has been released. The Nikon version should be released soon though.
May 7th, 2010 at 1:08 am
@eeps
From what I understand, the mounts themselves are intentionally not compatible; An EF-S mount will accept both EF-S and EF lenses, but a FF sensor EF mount will not accept an EF-S lens, and that the back of the lens itself would hit the mirror anyways, on top of the strong vignetting in most cases.
Just examining the vignetting issue; in most zoom cases I think you’d be right, that you’d have the strong vignetting in the wide angle, but you’d be fine zoomed in, which would likely be the equivalent FOV as you would have had at the wide setting on the crop sensor, but of course you’ve now lost the ability to zoom in any further. All of that is assuming you could mount it to begin with.
It’s this intentional incompatibility that allows them to save on glass, but it also makes me wonder if the investment in expensive EF-S lenses is really a great idea. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but I have to wonder if someone spending $700 on a single lens isn’t clearly on a trajectory that will take them beyond just a crop size format, not even considering the potential future technological advancements that I’ve already spoken at length about. But anyways, yea, I’ve obviously said enough on that
May 7th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
LOL That you did so I won’t go there. With regards to using an EF-S lens on an EF mount, it has been done with the Tokina 11-16. Ken Rockwell is a big proponent of the 116 and pointed out that fact. Your 12-24 is an interesting option for those with FF or intending to move on to FF but even among FF enthusiasts it has yet to receive widespread acceptance. The bulk of complaints are with regards to the QC of Sigma (of course, the 8-16 will probably have those problems too), the speed of the lens (only an issue when compared to the 116), and most of all, the huge bulging front element. I’ve never tried this lens personally but from what I’ve read, this lens can’t be used with front filters, only rear inserted gels. How do you manage with that front element? Is it a hassle to take care of? How does it compare to the Tokina 116?
May 12th, 2010 at 1:02 am
Jacob, those are fisheye lenses!, this one aint .
Jacob Says:
April 28th, 2010 at 8:02 am
I’m not sure where they’re getting that it’s the first 8mm lens for APS-C. Samyang has been making one for a bit:
http://www.google.com/products?q=samyang+8mm&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=oF7XS-LqFoju8wSiq-CDBw&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQrQQwAA
Read more: http://digital-photography-school.com/sigma-8-16mm-aps-c-lens#ixzz0ndKJEwrh
August 4th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
I just got my very own Sigma 8-16! it’s awesome! It takes a bit to get used to and was a bit disorienting (for example there is no way to tell how close an object is to the front element of the lens) but I am really happy with it and can’t wait to give it a proper go! So far I have only played around with perspective shots in the kitchen and gone for a quick few shots on the beach just before sunset. So far I am really pleased. I wish I can put on my ND10 filter, but so far I have to have patience and maybe will spend some money on a bespoke one someday but it has really good image quality and even though I expected it to be faster in low light, the wideness of the angle makes shake quite negligible. THUMBS UP!
Leave a Reply