Wild Dog Adventure Riding

General => Wild Dog Pictures => Topic started by: Buller on August 12, 2010, 01:35:49 pm

Title: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: Buller on August 12, 2010, 01:35:49 pm
Besides the price difference, which one would you buy for taking pictures of buildings and interiors, and occasionally landscape of course?

Anyone with experience on both?

The 8-16mm worries me a bit for distortion, although I'm sure it can be 'fixed' on software.  But is it really worth over the 10-20mm?
Dp review hasn't done a review on the 8-16 yet.

What about the Tamron 10-24mm?
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: Buller on August 13, 2010, 01:26:45 am
Thanks isiTututu.  The 8-16 is very tempting, I have to find a shop that sells it though.  It doesn't seem to be as available as the 10-20.
The review you quoted actually claims that the 8-16 has less distortion than the 10-20.

I love your picture, very sharp.
Thanks again!
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: Kobus on August 16, 2010, 01:14:43 pm
Difficult.

I at first thought that "fish-eye" type distortion wide open on the 8-16 would be a problem.

When I have my 10-20 on the camera I have seldom wanted to go wider. I have often looked for a little more zoom though.

I think it 50/50.
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: Buller on August 16, 2010, 02:07:19 pm
I think I'm going to settle for the 10-20, value for money is hard to beat I think.  Have you experienced sharpness problems on this lens?  It seems to be a problem on some of them.
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: Kobus on August 16, 2010, 03:09:18 pm
Nope, and for landscapes I am not too bothered about sharpness. Unlike birds etc. The flying type birds that is.
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: Trackz on August 16, 2010, 04:06:49 pm
I have the Canon 10-22. I shoot mostly mountain biking so it means action and landscape work. The 10-22/10-20/8-16 ranges are slow lenses, not know for being sharp and known for severe distortion on the edges. Pick anyone of the lot ... much of a muchness, they are all slow but for landscapes you won't notice a difference unless you go into a lab. My 10-22 is always on one of my camera bodies.
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: KwaiPappaGaai on September 10, 2010, 07:23:31 am
I have had both these lenses, currently I have the 8mm. this is a fish eye lens, you dont want this to shoot buildings and interiors. the 10-22 is very very nice lens, with high sharp quality photos. Here is a photo of my 8mm fisheye. I think you can see why.
(http://i759.photobucket.com/albums/xx234/harryhcs/sokker.jpg)

go for the 10-22. you will enjoy it. i sold mine about a year and a half ago for R8k
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: Buller on September 10, 2010, 08:56:51 am
Hi KwaiPappaGaai,

I eventually bought the Sigma 10-20mm.  I've done a few shots with it, and it fits my needs just fine.  The Fisheye for me would be a nice extra, but it's luxury.  I won't use it that much.

I bought that lens for R4,300.
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: KwaiPappaGaai on September 13, 2010, 11:35:37 am
KwaiPappaGaai, it looks like you're shooting full frame. Remember that us cheapskates with DX or APS-C would make that 8mm a 12.

But the 10-20 is a very nice lens.   :thumleft:

Not fullframe, its Canon EOS 350D. 1.6x "zoom" factor
Title: Re: Sigma 10-20mm vs Sigma 8-16mm for APS-C
Post by: KwaiPappaGaai on September 13, 2010, 11:37:09 am
Hi KwaiPappaGaai,

I eventually bought the Sigma 10-20mm.  I've done a few shots with it, and it fits my needs just fine.  The Fisheye for me would be a nice extra, but it's luxury.  I won't use it that much.

I bought that lens for R4,300.

shweet potatoes! that lens is a winner.  have fun and hope to see some more pics