Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens Review

[Bryan Carnathan]

Discuss the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens Review - Tell us what you think of the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM Lens.


Thanks!

[Steve U]

Whew, I bet you said at least tha,t Byran. Great review, a lot of numbers to crunch and images to sort. But this review would have to be one of the best tools that members here could avail themselves of.


The Sigma looks very good, I own a very sharp copy of the Tokina 11-16mm and love the solid feel and I am happy enough with the images.


It will be interesting to see how the new Canon 8-15mm (when we can get our hands on it) fits in with this lot, I feel it will probably be standing head and shoulders above the rest of the pack.


My bag won

[alex]

looks like no one really wants to talk about this lens.


I want to, but I don

[George Slusher]

Steve:


The Canon 8-15 is an entirely different lens: it

[George Slusher]

Alex:


"I'm primarily into landscapes, so this lens is *probably* a good choice. "


Maybe, but maybe not. Have you used a lens this wide? Landscapes can look terrible, with lots and lots of sky and foreground. Sometimes, that works; often, it doesn't. If you want a wide photo without the huge sky and foreground, try using a medium focal-length lens and doing panoramas. Canon's "stitching" software makes this relatively easy. (For best results, you should use a panning head and ensure that the lens+camera rotate around their optical center, but you can do pretty well with a ballhead with a panning base, as long as you are carful that both the tripod plate and the camera are level.)


Here's what I mean. I deliberately shot this to demonstrate what a super-wide angle photo can look like. This was taken at 10mm.








What I've found the most fun with the 10-20mm is getting "up close and personal" with objects. Here are two examples. The first is of a shrivled-up apple in a field, also at 10mm. I was lying down, with the lens only inches from the apple.








The second is of some oats. (The field is near the stable where my horses live. Seeds get dispersed through the horses' manure and by birds.)








Remember that perspective has NOTHING to do with the lens focal length. It depends entirely upon the relative position of the camera and the subjects. However, with a super-wide-angle lens, one can get closer to an object for the same size on the image than with a longer lens. The perspective distortion can be fun, especially with rounded objects like the apple or a deep object like the oats, giving more appearance of depth.

[thekingb]

I used this lens on a recent trip to Asheville, NC. Rather than rent it, I decided to buy and see if I really like it. I ended up selling it after I returned. The whole thing actually cost me a few dollars less than renting it!


The lens was fun, well-built and produced sharp images. But it's tough to use, at least for any length of time, because the super wide angle really limits your options. 8mm is really, really wide and produces some significant distortion at the edges of the frame. IMHO, Steve nails its best use: get up close to something interesting, but be able to include a significant amount of background.


Here's a shot at 8mm. Because the mountains are the background, it's not immediately obvious that the rocks in the foreground were literally right in front of me!


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x800/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/20/7737.chimney-rock22-_2D00_-Version-2.jpg[/img]

[George Slusher]

@thekingb:


"IMHO, Steve nails its best use: get up close to something interesting, but be able to include a significant amount of background."


Not to be picky, but I don

[thekingb]

Not to be picky, but I don't think Steve said that--I did.

Indeed you are right! So sorry for the missed citation. Long day at work....