Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:25 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 8-16 vs 10-20
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 12:02 am 
8-16mm:

Pros:
8mm
Good Quality

Cons:
No "gold ring" (EX)
1000$
Can't put a filter on it


10-20mm

Pros:
750$
Can have a polarizing filter
Good Quality
"Gold Ring" EX

Cons:
Not 8mm


of course the 10-20 is cheaper, SHould I be again of a not so good copy ? I dont want to return it and wait again.

Another thing is that I don't use my XTi that often.. 750$ for using it SOME times..... I don't know if its worth it, however I know that the 18-55 is poor.

The 8mm is really cool but I could only afford the 10-20. Should I wait...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 12:48 pm
Posts: 8049
Location: UK
Do you *really* need a filter on an ultra-wide angle like this? The EX designation doesn't seem to be worth much as there are good and bad lenses with and without it. The only difference locally is they put a longer warranty on EX ones.

If you just want to go seriously wide angle at low cost, how about the Samyang 8mm fisheye? Seems to ebay just over $300 (US or Canada). Ok, it's quite different from the Sigmas due to distortion, but still may be one to consider.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D2, 7D1, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 10-18, 15-85
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 50/1.4A, 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS
Compacts: Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 9:44 am 
A polarizer filter is somewhat useless in most of the times & there's no comparisson to the sharpness of the 8-16mm. the tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 is sharper than the 10-20mm,has constant F/2.8 & can use filters. So it's the only alternative in terms of optics


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:26 am 
I'm keeping a keen eye on the 8-16mm as I'm planning on buying it at some point. The 10-20mm is a great lens too and so is the Tokina 11-16mm.

However, they're rather expensive lenses and if as you say you rarely use your camera then you might find the expense hard to justify.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
I really dig a polarizer on my 10-20, even though uneven polarization can occur. It doesn't bother me.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 4:32 pm 
Hi,

I've looked at the Sigma 8-16mm too as it is an interesting offer. It's almost like getting a fish-eye without having to straighten out the lines and without having to keep the horizon in the middle and the verticals of the sides.

having looked through a few hundred sample shots so far - is it me or does this lens seem a little "woolly" when it comes to sharpness? A lot of the details seem fuzzy to me somehow...?

Either way a very interesting offer and if I didn't have the Tokina 11-16 already...

Cheers :-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:22 pm 
The polarizing filter would be useful for car photography : it removes reflections

but 8mm is wider...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:27 am 
For cars photography:

10-20 + Polarizing filter

or

8-16 ?

I think the polarizing would help against reflection but then again 8mm is so cool ! However i cant put anything in the corner without major distorsion so i guess its more or a pro tool.

I think ill get the 17-85 IS after that one, but for now... ! Which ones !


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:07 am
Posts: 1012
Location: North of the 49th parallel
You can get pretty artistic shots with the Sigma 10-20…

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:04 pm 
Id get the 8-16mm simply because its wider. Afterall, thats what you're getting an ultrawide angle for right? :lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Why not go all out and get the 3.5mm Sigma fisheye then? ;)

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 10:03 pm 
Because that would be silly :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:25 pm 
-


Last edited by Cr4zYH3aD on Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Nice one mate, thanks for sharing!

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 6:52 pm 
Honestly,I for one would preffer wider range than filter usage. There were so "many" times I needed a polarizer,that I decided to sold mine.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group