Sigma to release 8-16mm f/4-5.6 DC HSM

[powerslave]

Think I know what my next lens purchase is.


"April 15, 2010: Sigma Imaging (UK) Ltd is pleased to announce that the suggested retail price of the new 8-16mm f4-5.6 DC HSM is £799.99. This new lens will be available at the end of April in Sigma, Canon and Nikon fit. Sony and Pentax will follow shortly."
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1004/100415018mm16mmsigmacan.asp

[KrishnenduKes]

£800 is like the price of a new Splendour! But this looks sure interesting. Canon fit! Wow!

Approved

[Aryan]

Got to know this news recently. Goes a full 2mm wider (on the wider end) from the widest Canon APS-C sensored lens (EF-S 10-22mm)! Wonderful! However, I would like to see a full blown review of this lens. :) I am worried about some heavy vignetting on the 8mm end...

[Bibudesh]

I kind of stopped believing the reviews on third party lenses. Honestly my experience with tamron was not good, though I used it only at sweet points.

Owners use to claim that the images are as sharp as the Nikkor counterpart at sweet points, I totally diasgree on that.

Then there is one highly admired 150-500mm from Sigma. Owners claim a lot about this lens. I checked almost close to 500 images and none were appleaing.
My personal opinion though, stick to the proprietory lenses. save save save and buy something u can retain forever. Something like my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. I have sold off my tamron.

[Aryan]

@Bibu: I agree. Third party lenses almost always leave that cloud of doubt in your mind, about the quality of the photographs.

[surya@64]

I kind of stopped believing the reviews on third party lenses. Honestly my experience with tamron was not good, though I used it only at sweet points.

Owners use to claim that the images are as sharp as the Nikkor counterpart at sweet points, I totally diasgree on that.

Then there is one highly admired 150-500mm from Sigma. Owners claim a lot about this lens. I checked almost close to 500 images and none were appleaing.
My personal opinion though, stick to the proprietory lenses. save save save and buy something u can retain forever. Something like my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. I have sold off my tamron.

@Bibudesh, Looks like you have not got over the Tamron Effect....!!

[hitanshu]

The quality is variable, yes. But what I've seen so far (I own only canons) with the Tammy 17-55(?), the 28-75 and the Sigma 150-500 has been quite good. Of course its a whole stop slower but the money saved is tremendous!

[Aryan]

@Tau: Meanwhile, I would personally love to see some shots off of your 55-250mm; I don't remember when you last posted a photograph in this forum! :( A shortish review of the 55-250 would be real good too! :)

[robin234]

kinda old news now ,but it will be intersting to see its review :)

though I usualy don't go below 14mm on my 10-24mm :)

[hitanshu]

@Tau: Meanwhile, I would personally love to see some shots off of your 55-250mm; I don't remember when you last posted a photograph in this forum! :( A shortish review of the 55-250 would be real good too! :)

http://www.freerider.in/gallery/ has some of the pics. I am normally very lazy with processing pics so the lag remains :)

But yes, what review- its a lens everyone's seen. if you've not had your fill, come and take it for a day and post the review for everyone's benefit :D

I have yet to process photos from Pushkar (80% done), Bandhavgarh, Khajuraho, Kashmir, Munsyari excluding the general shoots like the Auto expo, other outings - care to help? :)

[powerslave]

I kind of stopped believing the reviews on third party lenses. Honestly my experience with tamron was not good, though I used it only at sweet points.

Owners use to claim that the images are as sharp as the Nikkor counterpart at sweet points, I totally diasgree on that.

Then there is one highly admired 150-500mm from Sigma. Owners claim a lot about this lens. I checked almost close to 500 images and none were appleaing.
My personal opinion though, stick to the proprietory lenses. save save save and buy something u can retain forever. Something like my Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. I have sold off my tamron.

I have to disagree with this. I have personally used a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (there's two variants, an old one non macro I think, and a new one). The old one is the one I used, it's sharp as hell. Great build, good focusing, silent AF etc.

Similar for Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 - both of which I have used enough, and achieved mind blowing images. For 60-70% of the price of a comparable Canon.

Now I agree, that Manufacturer lenses are generally better, but it boils down to this - You get what you pay for.

So for someone like me, who's trying not to blow too much money, I have been seriously comparing images from Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22 for a few months now, and it's hard to decide. I have used the 10-22 and love it. But it's hard to pass up on the $470 price tag for virtually indistinguishable images as compared
to the $766 10-22.

The 150-500 is an unbelievable option for those who just can't spring up $2000 for similar reach lenses from Canon/Nikon.

What sucks on third party lenses is quality control.



Tammy 17-55(?), the 28-75

You mean 17-50. :)

[synn]

The only third party lens that I liked was the Tokina 11-16. Guess Asahi glass makes a difference.

I've had particularly bad experiences with Sigmas and consider the brand the bottom of the bunch for third party solutions.

[Aryan]

The reviews that the 8-16mm is getting is a mixed bag. The IQ is good, but the vignetting and the distortion are the two major downsides. But, then again a lens with such super-ultra wide focal lengths, it is but very hard to control distortion and vignetting!

[Bibudesh]

I have to disagree with this. I have personally used a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (there's two variants, an old one non macro I think, and a new one). The old one is the one I used, it's sharp as hell. Great build, good focusing, silent AF etc.

Similar for Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 - both of which I have used enough, and achieved mind blowing images. For 60-70% of the price of a comparable Canon.

Now I agree, that Manufacturer lenses are generally better, but it boils down to this - You get what you pay for.

So for someone like me, who's trying not to blow too much money, I have been seriously comparing images from Sigma 10-20 and Canon 10-22 for a few months now, and it's hard to decide. I have used the 10-22 and love it. But it's hard to pass up on the $470 price tag for virtually indistinguishable images as compared
to the $766 10-22.

The 150-500 is an unbelievable option for those who just can't spring up $2000 for similar reach lenses from Canon/Nikon.

What sucks on third party lenses is quality control.


There are few lenses Sigma 10-20 for an e.g. which has been receiving accolades. I dont have any first hand experience so I cannot comment.

With third party lenses I have tried these lenses -
1. Sigma 50-500mm - It was fused with a Canon 1D mark II, the shots were good, but I did not get a gut feel since the subjects were not very far. Some of the far away images which I tried, was unable to focus even with such a monster body. And its bulky like crazy.

2. Tamron 90mm- Have already talked about it. I burnt my fingers, but thankfully I got a good resale. This stuff is similar to Hyundai cars, all hype, no stuff and good resale (no offence to hyundai owners).

3. Sigma 28-300- One piece of crap. Again I tried it over a Canon 400D.

4. Sigma 70-300mm macro- I would better purchase filters instead of this lens.

Unfortunately I do not have any sample images to share :( ..

But certainly, its about what you get what you pay for.

The only third party lens that I liked was the Tokina 11-16. Guess Asahi glass makes a difference.

I've had particularly bad experiences with Sigmas and consider the brand the bottom of the bunch for third party solutions.

I also have been reading lot of good things about Tokina 11-16. But once I have read some compatibility issue with D300. I'll share the link if m able to recall.
But since you have first hand experience then it should be credible.

[synn]

No, SP, haven't used it personally. But I'm friends with those who do and their opinion and pictures are top notch.

[hitanshu]

What do people here think of the Tamron 10-24 and the 18-200?

[powerslave]

No firsthand experience with the 10-24, but I can safely assume 18-200 won't give you the same image quality that lenses equally priced but with a shorter range will give you. Superzooms by nature, are trying to do too much, and are a compromise. Unless of course, it's something in this price range: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-300mm-3-5-5-6L-USM-Lens/dp/B0001G6U48

[Bibudesh]

What do people here think of the Tamron 10-24 and the 18-200?

One liner decision you may have to make- "Versatility or Quality".

And when it comes to super-wides then why are you taking chances with Tamron, I mean you should better go ahead with the crowd which is talking about Sigma or Tokina (Or Canon if u take my advice) .. Afterall they fall under same price range (leaving Canon).

[synn]

Like Thom Hogan says, the moment you put a superzoom on your DSLR, you're downgrading it to a glorified Bridge camera. A couple of f4 lenses would take way better pics than a variable aperture superzoom covering the same focal length range anyday.

[Aryan]

Like Thom Hogan says, the moment you put a superzoom on your DSLR, you're downgrading it to a glorified Bridge camera. A couple of f4 lenses would take way better pics than a variable aperture superzoom covering the same focal length range anyday.
Wonderfully put! I TOTALLY agree!

[hitanshu]

Of course, it is a glorified bridge camera. The primary purpose with such lenses is ease and travel not hardcore IQ.

That simplification doesn't answer the question about the real life degradation of the IQ while shooting F6.3-F8.

The point of the question is to have a travel easy lens. To say the picture quality will suffer is overstating the obvious without answering the primary question - HOW bad does it get in real life? I remember seeing a co-passenger with a D200+Sigma 18-200 at Abu Simbel. She was traveling easy and clicking all sort of pics with ease. But I couldn't make out the quality of the focusing - which is the q!!

[powerslave]

You can check out some threads on various forums about the lens to know exactly how bad it can get. Personally, I'd put it at the same level as the kit lens, but again, this is in my head. No first hand experience.

[powerslave]

Alright, said f**k it and ordered the 10-22 after much beating around the bush.

[Aryan]

Alright, said f**k it and ordered the 10-22 after much beating around the bush.
Congrats man, it's a great lens, especially with the kind of coverage it provides. :) When you finally get it in your hands, do show us some nice sample photographs. :)

[Bibudesh]

Of course, it is a glorified bridge camera. The primary purpose with such lenses is ease and travel not hardcore IQ.

That simplification doesn't answer the question about the real life degradation of the IQ while shooting F6.3-F8.

The point of the question is to have a travel easy lens. To say the picture quality will suffer is overstating the obvious without answering the primary question - HOW bad does it get in real life? I remember seeing a co-passenger with a D200+Sigma 18-200 at Abu Simbel. She was traveling easy and clicking all sort of pics with ease. But I couldn't make out the quality of the focusing - which is the q!!

Then y do u want to spend on a lens which cost nearly double of a P&S bridge. I believe that wud be more easy to use delivering nearly as good pictures as 18-200.

The case holds differently for me. I travel bcoz I want to shoot. I would carry the best of my equipment while travelling.

Alright, said f**k it and ordered the 10-22 after much beating around the bush.

Sometimes saying that makes a lot of sense.
Congrats buddy, and do share the test pics as soon as u get the stuff in your hand.

[hitanshu]

That again misses the point. A P&S's IQ is bad - yes, i'm a pixel peeper. Rather, unacceptable for me.

Plus even on tour, I may carry 3 lenses on the road, but lug just the 18-200 around all day for simple ease.

[powerslave]

Congrats man, it's a great lens, especially with the kind of coverage it provides. :) When you finally get it in your hands, do show us some nice sample photographs. :)


Sometimes saying that makes a lot of sense.
Congrats buddy, and do share the test pics as soon as u get the stuff in your hand.
Thanks and will do! It comes in tomorrow and I can't wait! One thing I'm already bugged with is the 77mm filters are expensive as hell.

I got the Hoya 77mm DMC Pro 1 Protective Filter and it just forms the mid tier of filters at $59. Just for a clear filter!

My 58mm 1000x ND cost me $45. The 77mm NDs run $150-200 for a 77mm. That's as much as the 18-55IS kit lens sells for! This is going to get really expensive really soon. :D

Good thing glass holds it's value better than stocks! Invest in glass!

[powerslave]

That again misses the point. A P&S's IQ is bad - yes, i'm a pixel peeper. Rather, unacceptable for me.

Plus even on tour, I may carry 3 lenses on the road, but lug just the 18-200 around all day for simple ease.

It is meant exactly for travelers who don't wish to carry a lot of lenses. And it makes a lot of sense if you're going to be using it as long as you are okay knowing that it's not going to be the best performance (AF/Chromatic Aberration/Distortion/Resolution) you see for your money.

Again, the extent to which this lens compromises, and whether or not it's acceptable or not is something you have to decide by looking at the reviews and comparing it to similarly priced lenses.

Sorry for saying stuff you know already, all I want to say is look at the samples!

[synn]

Chromatic aberration isn't a problem for the Nikon 18-200 because the new bodies have built in corrections for all Nikkor lenses. But AF, resolution and Bokeh will all be inferior to say, the 18-55 and 55-200 combo; let alone something like the 16-85 f4.

I don't know about you tau, but when I take a picture, i want to do the maximum justice to the frame rather than go home and regret. Whether I'm traveling or not. I think everyone in this forum is serious enough to feel the same about photography. The lens is "Good enough" for say, a family on their vacation. Not for me and quite possibly, not for you.

[hitanshu]

Thanks guys. That is the exact perspective.

Let me give you a weekly occurence. I go cycling weekly. I don't have the leisure to compose good shots. You see something or you stop for a while - you click.

Plus for someone who travels monthly, I miss such a lens. Ofc, bokeh AF etc are inferior but its more fun and more spontaneous.

That doesn't mean I don't use other lenses at the right time!