Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM reviewed on 50D

[996GT2]

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/51...56apsc?start=1

Quite impressive resolution characteristics IMO. Distortion is also quite well controlled at 8mm and almost nonexistent at 12mm.

Current Amazon price is $699, cheaper than both the Canon 10-22 and Nikkor 10-24mm. And I'd have to say that the Sigma is better optically than both of them, despite being a wider lens. Hopefully Sigma will step up their quality control with this lens so that it doesn't have the softness/AF issues that the 30mm and 50mm f/1.4s were plauged with.

 

[PurdueRy]

This might be perfect for me. I bought the Tokina for a bit but couldn't help feeling it wasn't a big enough difference from my 17-55mm. I then looked into the 10-22mm but wasn't sure I was happy with resolution.

This seems like I would have a hard time saying it isn't wide enough and the resolution is pretty damn awesome. My only reservation is that its sigma...and we know how they've been quality wise as of late. I'll wait for user reports.

 

[996GT2]

This might be perfect for me. I bought the Tokina for a bit but couldn't help feeling it wasn't a big enough difference from my 17-55mm. I then looked into the 10-22mm but wasn't sure I was happy with resolution.

This seems like I would have a hard time saying it isn't wide enough and the resolution is pretty damn awesome. My only reservation is that its sigma...and we know how they've been quality wise as of late. I'll wait for user reports.

Most of the problems associated with Sigma have to do with AF accuracy. 2 of the most popular Sigma lenses (the 30 1.4 and 50 1.4) are both notorious for having bad AF quality control. In my own experience, I've had 3 Sigma lenses that all mis-focused to some extent.

However, this is an ultrawide, and with that comes extreme depth of field even at wide apertures. So even if you get a copy that doesn't AF so accurately, it might not be a problem.

 

[PurdueRy]

Most of the problems associated with Sigma have to do with AF accuracy. 2 of the most popular Sigma lenses (the 30 1.4 and 50 1.4) are both notorious for having bad AF quality control. In my own experience, I've had 3 Sigma lenses that all mis-focused to some extent.

However, this is an ultrawide, and with that comes extreme depth of field even at wide apertures. So even if you get a copy that doesn't AF so accurately, it might not be a problem.

A good point. Maybe sigma should only produce UWA lenses!

 

[shocksyde]

Quite impressive. Sigma, if anything, lights fires under other manufacturer's asses.

The inability to add filters kills it for me. I'd still love to give it a whirl, maybe it would win me over.