ahsanford said:
mackguyver said:
PhotographyFirst said:
You guys are only thinking full frame? Sigma's 8-16 is already in the "Art" class of optics and build quality. I have one on my T1i and it is an outrageously superb lens even at 8mm. The sharpness and microcontrast are amazing, and for focus stacking landscapes, it has nearly zero focus breathing. The FOV is around 12-13mm equivalent for full frame.
Sigma already conquered the UUWA zoom lens segment for crop cameras long before anyone else.
It would be interesting to see if they make the 12mm full frame version better to match the 8-16. The 8-16 is way better even for a crop lens.
Here's a TPD comparison. Although his 8-16 looks like the lower right corner is decentered to be softer than a good copy, which I have. Even then, beats the noodles out of the 12-24.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=710&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=954&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
If I still had a crop body, I'd get that lens in a heartbeat. It's excellent. Also, you're right, Sigma pioneered the whole ultrawide zoom segment, and I imagine they're feeling a bit encroached by the new 11-24 f/4. The 12-24 f/4 compares pretty favorably when stopped down and is way cheaper. I still think it's a pretty niche product, though, so I'd be surprised if they gave it the Art treatment, but maybe, like Canon, they will make it a statement piece. In other industries, there's lots of evidence that it works - Dodge sold a ton of Neons and minivans when they rolled out the Viper, and Ford is even planning to produce a $400k (really) Ford GT successor. Getting people excited about a brand (or in the showroom) can really pay off if done well. I think Sigma could definitely pull off something unique as they've done before in this segment.
I am not discounting that it might be a crop Art lens, but there's sooooo much more money to be made in the FF segment, i.e. if you have the money for a FF rig, you are far more likely to be able/willing to pay ~ $1k for an Art lens.
- A
The (U)UWA zoom lens segment is an area I’ve long been interested in. I have also written many posts about (U)UWA too. I won’t go over them all… search my profile posts if you’re really interested… lol
What I will say here though, is that the choice of UWA zooms available today is truly terrific (and also ‘simply great’) for both APS-C and FF. When I bought my first UWA zoom, there were only a few options. Now there are so many options, including ‘version 2s’ of certain lenses even!
-A, while I do agree in part with your analogy of the ‘statement piece’ approach / possible philosophy to justify an ART UWA from Sigma… also remember there are so many more people with APS-C cameras than FF still, and as such – although a higher proportion of FF photogs might buy an UWA than APS-C photogs, I’d say there is more money ‘overall’ (total volumes sold x profit per lens) in APS-C than FF.
Sticking to APS-C firstly… the Sigma 8-16mm is indeed a truly terrific lens, which I’ve had for a few years now. I upgraded from my previous UWA zoom, the Sigma 10-20mm (f/4-5.6 model). It’s noticeably sharper corner to corner than either Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 or the f/4-5.6 model). Has much lower CA, more pleasing IQ and other aspects overall. It handles flare ‘ok’ (perhaps the only ‘slight chink in its armour’). Most importantly it is able to produce significantly wider shots than any other APS-C UWA zoom lens.
There are other good / great options: Canon’s 10-22mm, Canon 10-18mm STM, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, etc. For FF there is the new and highly acclaimed 16-35mm f/4 IS. Sharp, including corner to corner, AND with IS. That’s good! I’m all for IS… also in UWAs. (I wish it was built in to my camera body – or into my Sigma 8-16mm – of course with no loss of IQ).
The Sigma 8-16mm for crop is indeed superior comparably to the FF Sigma 12-24mm v1 or v2. Of course there is copy to copy variation… but I’m generalising / averaging. So with Canon now producing the 11-24mm, that’s a new ‘level’ of commitment to the FF UWA zoom lens segment. Well done Canon. From all accounts – it is a fantastic lens (though indeed, expensive!)
I think with Canon recently producing 2 new FF UWAs and an APS-C UWA (10-18mm STM) – they are showing how they believe this market segment will continue to be a profitable one (even for the 10-18mm STM, which is – in effect, a ‘budget lens’). Again, kudos to Canon for every STM lens they have produced to date.. all very good. The EF-M 11-22mm STM also is a fantastic UWA lens, by the way, for EOS-M cameras!
Having been quite disappointed at what even ‘expensive FF UWA zooms’ have been able to produce at the edges and particularly extreme corners (even when stopped down), but seeing what my Sigma 8-16mm produces corner to corner is one (but not the only) reason I am staying with APS-C as my main camera at this stage. (Costs of other lenses, including reaching the equivalent focal length for telezooms in FF is another). I have thousands of dollars invested in glass… with the only lens that I’m still ‘seeking’ – being a fast 50mm (or thereabouts) Canon prime (but that’s another story).
Of course I’d love a Canon FF with the Canon 11-24mm… but that’s a new bucket of dollars I would have to split open! So in that sense, well done to Canon for the ‘more budget friendly’ FF 16-35mm f/4… which a lot of people have said is ‘truly great value’ (including it having IS!)
mackguyver said:
PhotographyFirst said:
Going lower than 12mm is beyond where a lens is useful. I have yet to see a single 11mm Canon shot that looks good in 3:2 format. Going that wide only looks good in panoramic formats, IMO.
12mm seems a bit arbitrary and I think it's a bit premature to say that about the 11-24 given that people have only had it in their hands for 2 weeks at best. The wider the lens the more difficult the composition, so it's going to take some time for someone to really nail a shot at 11mm. When they do, I think people will see the value...and besides it's a zoom...there's no law that says it has to be used at 11mm
I agree with Mackguyver here… there is definitely nothing wrong with having a lens that goes wider than a previous model. (The Sigma 8-16mm lens, which only really works on APS-C DSLR bodies, has been tested to be about FF equivalent to 12.5mm). By the way, TDP’s test of the Sigma 8-16mm at 8mm f/8 appears to have an issue (shake, or another variable) – as it is noticeably not as sharp as the f/5.6 or f/11 (and it should be from most other tested Sigma 8-16 lenses at those comparable settings). Or it could be an unusual anomaly for that particular copy. Mine is truly sharp from f/5.6 to f/16 when defraction starts to make itself known.
When I obtained my first UWA lens, it took some time for me to capture quality images and photograph UWA well… but now with several years of UWA experience under my belt, I’m better (but can still learn and improve – that’s another reason I love photography).
Note – here is what I think about fisheye- that just doesn’t ‘work’ for me. There have only been a handful of fisheye photos that I have thought ‘wow… I really like that’. The ‘fisheye effect’ is off putting to me, as is vignetting, and other ‘lens effects’ that some people like / see as adding value. But there have been so many more rectilinear UWA photos that I do say ‘wow’ to! When I moved from 18mm to 10mm and then to 8mm (in APS-C lens ‘wide’ possibilities) – each time I have really appreciated what I could now achieve.
I recently took a photo of a beautiful small lake (ok, it maybe was a pond!) in New Zealand with towering mountains in the background, and I could only capture what I really wanted with my (APS-C) Sigma 8-16mm. After I took the ‘8mm’ shot, I set it at 10mm, and I couldn’t fit the entire pond and perspective / composition in that I wanted. Same with some rainbows that I have captured previously (eg needed to cut off ends, or stitch multiple images together at 10mm).
Already in the last few weeks I’ve seen some great shots with the (FF) Canon 11-24mm at 11mm. Looking forward to more. Well done Canon!
And... Sigma… I'm looking forward to what you produce, whether it’s an ART or something else. Will only be good for us photographers (who are not 'pixel peepers' - but love sharp, contrasty, beautiful images capturing the light!)
Paul 8)
and can accept filters.
