Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Tips Needed

[wsgroves]

Just picked this up for my 7D and was wondering if any kind souls could give me some shooting tips with it.
I have never shot anything that wide.

Thanks much.

[Synomis192]

Ultra-Wides are extremely fun to shoot with. I've borrowed my friend's Sigma 10-20mm and for me, I had a blast shooting group shots with an external flash pointed at them. It was at a small get together, and by using the flash, the group of friends were full exposed while the background remained dark. I liked that effect. I'm not sure if your lens is a fisheye though. if it is, landscape shots are always fun. Also, with that lens, try shooting off the hip. Just level your camera parallel to the ground and start shooting things that you find visually appealing.

I wish I could have a Ultrawide lens. It's great for landscapes and group shots*.

*just be careful when shooting groups shots with UW lens. People on the outer edges then to get extremely distorted. Try to make everyone fit in the middle.

[dr croubie]

I've had this lens for a few months, and I love it.
Firstly, for Syno, it's not a fisheye. The barrel distortion is a bit high at 8mm (but it beats every other 8mm lens around, oh yeah, there aren't any). By 10mm it's perfectly rectilinear.

It flares a tiny bit, but you really have to point it into the sun and have a dark foreground to show it up.

Group photos are fine, but don't use it for portraits, at least not within 1m (and certainly not from 20cm away). Most people end up with "what's wrong with that, I look horrible, delete it!" (although then they were "wow, that looks really cute" when I did the exact same thing to their dog).

It's variable-aperture, but just set it to f/5.6 and forget about it. There's not much point in going to f/4.5 at 8mm (you can handhold it to 1/10s easily, 1/4s if you're steady), and the DOF is so huge, evan at 16mm f/5.6 that there's not point stopping down to f/8, the centre just gets softer from diffraction (although the edges get slightly better. Maybe f/6.3 is the sweet spot).
You can also just leave it at Hyperfocal (5m or so) and switch to MF, using AF if might focus at infinity then you've wasted half your DOF. Or if using AF, point at the ground a few meters away, never infinity.

It's a cool-looking lens, it's got that reverse-telephoto that contracts front and rear to the centre at 16mm, expands out fully at 8mm, so the front element is always perfectly shaded by the hood (just like the 24-70mm L mk1, unlike almost every other zoom). The front element can get dirty, and it took a while to clean (with wider-angle lenses, especially at narrow apertures, front element dust and grime gets more and more noticeable).

The front cap comes off in 2 stages, you can take the first bit off and mount 72mm filters.
Don't bother.
Even at 16mm, you get black corners, so you'll have to crop (so it'll end up at 18mm anyway, use another lens for filters).

And the best thing, is that it can also mount on a FF body, and doesn't vignette at 15-16mm (you get a nice circle at 8mm, don't bother that wide). Still, it's cheaper than a 14mm L or a 16-35mm if/when you go FF, even if it's a bit weird...

[Synomis192]

@drcroubie

Wow, 8mm and it's not a fisheye, and it can be used on a FF camera?! I'm really considering getting this.

Is there any other UW lens that are compatible with FF cameras?

[dr croubie]

Is there any other UW lens that are compatible with FF cameras?

The Sigma 12-24 lenses are (designed to be) FF lenses, on an FF they give about the same view as the 8-16 does on a crop body.
And of course they're totally useable on crop too, although 12mm isn't as wide as (Tokina) 11mm, (Canon) 10mm, or (Sigma) 8mm. But they're the perfect upgrade path, mk1 is almost perfectly rectilinear, but a bit soft, mk2 has more distortion but sharper, performs about the same as the 8-16. I'm not going FF any time soon, so the 8-16 on crop was the perfect choice for me.

[Random Orbits]

@drcroubie

Wow, 8mm and it's not a fisheye, and it can be used on a FF camera?! I'm really considering getting this.

Is there any other UW lens that are compatible with FF cameras?

Synomis192, the 8-16 is for crops only.  Sigma does make a FF 12-24 tho.

[dr croubie]

Synomis192, the 8-16 is for crops only.  Sigma does make a FF 12-24 tho.

Yeah, but I said that it can be used on FF at 15-16mm. Does a better job than the 16-35L at 16mm, I reckon (at least, distortion-wise).
I can post a (film-scan) sample when I get home (if it's any good, getting developed atm)

[AdamJ]

Brushing up on hyperfocal distances is a good idea.

Also, I often find it hard to visualise such wide-angle perspectives in my mind's eye so if you're like me, take the time to try lots of different viewpoints with the camera held to your eye. That way, you will often find great possibilities from seemingly mundane scenes.

[Synomis192]

Thanks for the input guys, I'll check out the Sigma 12-24mm. The reason why is because my Canon T1i's shutter count is really really high. It's about 48k now. If that dreaded day comes where the shutter breaks or something like that, I'll just "upgrade" to the Canon 5Dc. That's why I want to start building a EF Lens collection.

Brushing up on hyperfocal distances is a good idea.

can you explain what hyperfocal distance is?

Side note: What does it mean by gaining or losing a stop? People talk about that when they talk about lenses I think.

[AdamJ]

Thanks for the input guys, I'll check out the Sigma 12-24mm. The reason why is because my Canon T1i's shutter count is really really high. It's about 48k now. If that dreaded day comes where the shutter breaks or something like that, I'll just "upgrade" to the Canon 5Dc. That's why I want to start building a EF Lens collection.

Brushing up on hyperfocal distances is a good idea.

can you explain what hyperfocal distance is?

Side note: What does it mean by gaining or losing a stop? People talk about that when they talk about lenses I think.

The hyperfocal distance is the focusing distance at which the greatest depth of acceptable focus (depth of field) will be achieved. It's basically a function of lens focal length and aperture. Your camera / lens AF might focus at or near infinity for, say, a big landscape, but if you instead manually focus at the hyperfocal distance (considerably nearer), the field of acceptable sharpness will extend much closer towards you without sacrificing any significant image sharpness at the furthest point in your scene.

There are rules of thumb for working out the hyperfocal distance for any given combination of focal length and aperture but I think the easiest way is to refer to a table. There are plenty out there - just google "hyperfocal distance table" and take your pick.

[Pancho]

I have this lense for 8 months now. I had already played with the Sigma 10-20 before but this 8-16 has a better construction quality, is far sharper and even wider (difference between 8 and 10mm is not only a marketing feature). I love this lense for landscape with a huge slightly cloudy (or even plane traces) blue sky. I use it also for some sport shoots, ski jump, mountain bike... with a wide landscape behind the subject. In that case, the guy you shoot has to be quite good because you have to be closed to him, and some time it can be dangerous
An other interesting aspect is the perspective distorsion. For example, I shoot my son, 1m30 tall, with an adult, 1m80, 3-4m behind. The result is that my son looks twice taller than the adult with which he is discussing.
There are many funny things we can do with UWA, but it is absolutly not a general purpose lense and all shoots have to be carefully prepared...

[wsgroves]

Thanks for all the info everyone. I will set it to 5.6 and forget it like you say. I did read it gets sharper there on the edges then wide open anyways.
I will also try to focus on the ground a few feet ahead of me instead of letting it auto focus. You say that will keep more items that are rather close in focus more then just framing them?
I am also unsure about the hyperfocal.

Thanks.