Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC (vs
Sigma 12-24 on FF) |
|
For years, there has not be any
equivalent of the Sigma 12-24 for APS-C
users. I have really appreciated the 12-24
on FF, and I wished to see something similar
for my Canon 7D. In early 2010, Sigma has
announced such lens: the 8-16mm, a lens
created exclusively for APS-C cameras. It
gives exactly the same angle of view of the
12-24 on FF (if you have a Nikon APS-C
camera, 1.5x crop factor), and a very
similar angle of view on Canon APS-C cameras,
that have a 1.6x crop factor. I have tested
this lens on my 7D and I have compared it
with the 12-24 on 1Ds3!
As usual, I recommend to give a look to
the page
Testing and reviewing a lens: it will
help you to understand better this review
and my testing methodology!
|
|
|
Thanks to...
A special thanks to DigitalFoto (www.digitalfoto.it)
who loaned me the lenses used for this
review! DigitalFoto is one of the biggest
camera stores in Italy, and I bought here
the majority of my cameras and lenses...they
have great prices, they are fast and serious
- highly recommended!
| |
Specifications
(compared with similar lenses)
|
|
|
Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM
|
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX HSM
|
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM
|
|
Angle of view
|
118º - 80º (on 1.6x APS-C)
|
107º - 68º (on 1.6x APS-C)
|
122º - 84º (on FF)
|
|
Macro ratio
|
0.13x
|
0.15x
|
0.14x
|
|
Max aperture
|
f/4.5-5.6
|
f/3.5
|
f/4.5-5.6
|
|
Stabilization
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Autofocus
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
|
Closest focus
|
0.24 meters
|
0.24 meters
|
0.28 meters
|
|
Dimensions
|
75 (D) x 105 (L) mm
|
87 (D) x 88 (L) mm
|
83 (D) x 107 (L) mm
|
|
Weight
|
550 g
|
520 g
|
615 g
|
|
Weather sealing
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Price
|
$ 700
|
$ 650
|
$ 860
|
|
Production
|
2010 -
|
2009 -
|
2003 -
|
|
Built quality and autofocus
The 8-16 has the classic built quality of
Sigma wide angles: pretty good, not as solid
as the Canon 17-40 or other L lenses, but
still good enough for every use. It is
slightly smaller and lighter than its
fullframe equivalent, but there is not an
huge difference. It has two rubber rings,
one for zooming between 8 and 16mm, and the
other for manual focus; since it has the
ring type USM motor, you can focus manually
in every moment, even when the focus switch
is set on AF. The minimum focusing distance
is just 24 centimeters, but due to its
extreme angle of view, it has a quite poor
reproduction ratio, like the Sigma 10-20 and
12-24.
The autofocus is fast (on par with other
wide-angles in the same price class); it has not
image stabilization. As I say every time, I
consider IS an important feature in every
lens, included wide angles, so I really hope
to see stabilization in future Canon or
Sigma wide-angles!
The f/4.5-5.6 aperture is pretty dark,
but for landscape photos it is not a
problem, since the most used apertures are
much smaller (I tend to use f/11 or f/16 on
fullframe and f/8 or f/11 on APS-C). That
said, if you plan to take many night photos,
the aperture becomes important: in this
case, I'd suggest to look for another
wide-angle with brighter aperture, as the
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.
|
|
Image quality (in
comparison with Sigma 12-24)
This time I have done a different
comparison than usual. Generally I use same
camera and identical settings; this time,
instead, I have compared the Sigma 8-16 on
7D (18 megapixels, APS-C) with the Sigma
12-24 on 1DsIII (21 megapixel, fullframe).
Why? There is not any lens that can be
really compared to the 8-16, except for the
12-24; other APS-C wide-angles does not come
close the extreme angle of the 8mm.
In many of my trips around the world I
want to replace completely the 1DsIII with
the 7D, so I want to see if in practice the
8-16 can really replace the 12-24; for this
reason I have compared focal lengths that
give approximately the same angle of view. I
have taken test photos at 8mm (12mm for the
12-24), 11mm (18mm for the 12-24) and 16mm
(24mm for the 12-24) both wide open and at
the aperture I use most often for landscapes
(f/11 of the 8-16 and f/16 for the 12-24). The lenses were
mounted on tripod; I have used mirror lock
up and self timer. The following images are
100% crop from the unprocessed RAW file.
|
|
Sigma 8-16 at 8mm (on Canon 7D), center |
Sigma 12-24 at 12mm (on Canon 1Ds3), center |
|
f/4.5 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
f/11-f/16 |
 |
 |
|
Sigma 8-16 at 8mm (on Canon 7D), lower right corner |
Sigma 12-24 at 12mm (on Canon 1Ds3), lower right corner |
|
f/4.5 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
f/11-f/16 |
 |
 |
|
Sigma 8-16 at 8mm (on Canon 7D), lower left corner |
Sigma 12-24 at 12mm (on Canon 1Ds3), lower left corner |
|
f/4.5 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
f/11-f/16 |
 |
 |
|
At 8/12mm, the two lenses are nearly
identical in the center (the 8-16 has a
little more contrast, but it is not an huge
difference). In the corners, it is a
different story. As you can see, here I have
shown crops from all four corners: the
reason is that the 12-24 has not an uniform
sharpness. The 8-16 is always better, but in
the lower right and upper right corners the
difference is small, while in the upper left
corner there is a bigger difference, and in
the lower left corner the 8-16 is much
sharper than the 12-24 at every aperture.
|
|
Sigma 8-16 at 11mm (on Canon 7D), center |
Sigma 12-24 at 18mm (on Canon 1Ds3), center |
|
f/5.0 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
f/11-f/16 |
 |
 |
|
Sigma 8-16 at 11mm (on Canon 7D), corner |
Sigma 12-24 at 18mm (on Canon 1Ds3), corner |
|
f/5.0 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
f/11-f/16 |
 |
 |
|
At 12/19mm, the comparison is very
similar: no real difference in the center,
while the 8-16 has better corners. Here I
have not done again the additional crops (to
avoid getting mad :-)), but like 12mm, even
at 18 the Sigma 12-24 show different
sharpness between the four corners, while
the 8-16 has a much more uniform sharpness.
|
|
Sigma 8-16 at 16mm (on Canon 7D), center |
Sigma 12-24 at 24mm (on Canon 1Ds3), center |
|
f/5.6 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
f/11-f/16 |
 |
 |
|
Sigma 8-16 at 16mm (on Canon 7D), corner |
Sigma 12-24 at 24mm (on Canon 1Ds3), corner |
|
f/4.5 |
 |
 |
|
f/8-f/11 |
 |
 |
|
At 16/24mm, again, the center is
identical while the 8-16 wins in the
corners; the 12-24 has good lower right
corner but the other corners are much worse.
Distortion, vignetting,
angle of view
These photos show how
the 8-16 and the 12-24 compared in terms
of distortion, vignetting and angle of
view. The 8-16 was on 7D and the 12-24
was on 1Ds Mark III.
 |
|
 |
|
8-16 at
8mm
f/4.5, on Canon 7D |
|
12-24
at 12mm
f/4.5, on Canon 1DsIII |
 |
|
 |
|
8-16 at
16mm
f/4.5, on Canon 7D |
|
12-24
at 24mm
f/4.5, on Canon 1DsIII |
On the Canon 7D, the 8-16 is the equivalent
of about 13-26mm on fullframe. The 1mm
difference between 12mm and 13mm equiv. is
clearly visible, even tough they are both
very wide. On Nikon cameras, you get a real
12-24 equivalent. The 8-16 has slightly less
distortion than the already good 12-24, and
it shows less vignetting.
Samples and comments
These are some sample
photos taken with the Sigma 8-16mm on
Canon 7D. You can download
either the untouched photo (JPEG
converted from RAW without any
additional post processing; minimum
contrast and saturation, no sharpening,
no AC, distortion or vignetting
correction) or the post processed
version. The untouched photo is a good
way to see the real image quality of the
lens, and the post processed versions
allow to see the final quality you can
get with good post processing
techniques.
The 8-16mm is pretty
sharp at every aperture; it has some
chromatic aberration, but it can be
easily fixed. One problem that did not
appear from previous tests is that with
distant subjects (f/11 and f/8 samples
at 8mm), the upper right corner is not
as sharp as the other areas of the
image. (I think this is a problem of
this specific copy, not all 8-16)
Conclusions
The big question for me was "is the 8-16
better than 12-24", and I am glad to
say...yes (if you get a good copy, of
course). Seven years have passed between
the Sigma 12-24 and the new 8-16, and Sigma
has been able to make visible improvements
in optical quality. My copy of the Sigma
12-24 is not one of the best (I have had
three copies of this lens...the previous one
was clearly better, but I dropped it on the
rocks during one of my trips), but even in
the lower right corner, where my current
Sigma 12-24 has no problems, the 8-16 shows
a little more sharpness.
The Sigma 8-16 for sure is not perfect.
If you want super professional built
quality, extreme sharpness from corner to
corner even at f/2.8 and wide aperture,
there is only one wide angle for you: the
uber Nikkor 14-24mm. Canon and Sigma
wide-angle are good, but the Nikkor is
another world...
That said, many photographers don't have
the budget for a fullframe camera + Nikkor
14-24, or they use an APS-C camera as main
body so they need an "APS-C only" lens that
is able to cover angles comparable to the
Sigma 12-24 or the Nikkor 14-24. In this
case, the Sigma 8-16 is the answer: for its
price, it is an excellent lens, in my
opinion nowadays it is the best wide angle
that you can get for an APS-C camera. After
these tests, I have bought it for my 7D and
I'm going to use it in all my trips!
Do you have
comments or questions?
If you have comments or questions about
this article, feel free to ask in the
Juza
Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|
|
