[Sandy Hancock]

I'm trying to see if a fisheye like this can function as a rectilinear in a pinch if necessary.

It certainly can.
At 10mm, the fully corrected image is still slightly wider than the Sigma at 8mm (on the right - also note the green flare blob)



At 17mm it is not very fishy anyway, and the corrected image is almost indistinguishable from the the DA15 (on the right)

[Outis]

I don't believe there is enough appreciation for how much effort and time go into these reviews. At least by now, especially considering the history of reviews I've authored for the forums (see my signature), I would have hoped any concerns of comprehensiveness would have been long gone...
-Heie

Dude, if you ever decide you want to go to grad school, in anything, I will totally write a letter on your behalf. "Would this man have trouble writing a dissertation? What? How can you ask that? Seriously, have you read his lens reviews!??!!"

[bertwert]

Dude, if you ever decide you want to go to grad school, in anything, I will totally write a letter on your behalf. "Would this man have trouble writing a dissertation? What? How can you ask that? Seriously, have you read his lens reviews!??!!"

I agree with you there.

This made me laugh so hard...

[mgvh]

At 17mm it is not very fishy anyway, and the corrected image is almost indistinguishable from the the DA15 (on the right)

That's a great comparison. I think you just saved me from longing for the DA 15. Thanks! (I think...)

[csa]

Thank you, Jesus!

I was really taken aback by some of the responses in this thread, and you nailed everything, Edgar. I was going to bold the key points, but then I'd bold the entire quote.

I apologize if that seems callous ("taken aback") , it's just I thought I gave sufficient explanation as to why each lens was selected and where the scope and parameters of this review fell. For example, if you are considering the 8-16, then you aren't considering the 15 LTD as an alternative. A compliment or a replacement during travel/hiking, sure. However not as alternatives. Same goes for the 10-17, or the Samyamg 10. Both for size as well as focal length. But these four? They are largely weighed against each other as an "either/or" struggle, as most cannot afford all of them (or even two of the four). As mentioned, they are the four widest available, and so there is certainly going to be consternation on which is the best option for that UWA solution. Sure the 10-2#'s could have been included, but like Edgar said, that would take FOREVER and again, the Sigma 8-16 is widely regarded as the premier UWA zoom for crop. Period. Both for IQ as well as field of view.

I don't believe there is enough appreciation for how much effort and time go into these reviews. At least by now, especially considering the history of reviews I've authored for the forums (see my signature), I would have hoped any concerns of comprehensiveness would have been long gone...

That aside, I appreciate the recommendations, and I will certainly consider a defishing section - had totally forgotten about that

-Heie

Heie, first let me say I'm very appreciative of the reviews and writings by you; and also your service for our Country. You definitely are a person that not only can review cameras & equipment; but also write it in such a manner that it's not "dry & boring" reading. You keep the reader's interest up!

My apologies for suggesting other lenses to be included; you are absolutely correct with what your idea of the 4 selected is; and we will be most excited to read your review! A "defishing" section would be most helpful, if you have the time to include it!

Thanks again!

[Digitalis]

I went through one copy, and it was ridiculously sharp from edge to edge for such an extreme angle. Did I just get very lucky or something?

I'd say you did, I went through 4 copies to find the one i'm using now. The lens has a massive amount of astigmatism that is distinctly evident at the edges of the frame. Stopping down cannot eliminate this effect - but it does make them less apparent.

One thing that springs to mind: you should do a starburst comparison between each of the lenses - the Sigma 8-16mm is rather disappointing in this regard:



The mechanism behind starbursts is that a lens with higher flare resistance will render rays with greater clarity that a lens with lower flare resistance. The number for rays is dependent on the number of aperture blades used in the aperture itself, unless then lens is being shot wide open: in that case all the starburst pattern from lens should be pretty much identical.

The 15mm is a telephoto compared to the lenses he is examining here!

I will remind you Edgar, that there is a 180 degree difference between the optical construction of a telephoto lens and a retro-focus wideangle.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

I'd say you did, I went through 4 copies to find the one i'm using now.

I can't verify this, but I've heard that Australia is a penal colony where they send all the bad lenses...the worst of the worst.

[Digitalis]

I've heard that Australia is a penal colony where they send all the bad lenses

I'm in South Australia, Victoria is where all the convicts go. But then again I have testing bench* that can reveal flaws that most people would completely miss, and believe me when I say this: testing a wide angle zoom with an 8-16mm focal length range isn't easy.


*and the fact that my optics bench was originally designed to test medium format and large format lenses makes it even more awkward.

[Outis]

One thing that springs to mind: you should do a starburst comparison between each of the lenses

I'll second this request.

[Driline]

I'm in South Australia, Victoria is where all the convicts go.

Here's a little fun fact from Wikipedia.

"Approximately 20% of modern Australians are descended from transported convicts. Once deemed the "convict stain", it is now considered by many Australians to be a cause for celebration to have a convict in one's lineage. The extent to which the convict era has shaped Australia's national character has been studied by many writers and historians."

Digitalis looks a little "shifty" in that beard. One has to wonder if he perhaps carries the "convict stain"

[Heie]

@Digitalis - this is my personal copy of the 8-16 and it's the only one I went through. The same nuances you identified (astigmatism, starbursts, etc.), however I haven't noticed any massive optical shortcomings that demand replacement. I'm sorry to hear you went through that :/

Dude, if you ever decide you want to go to grad school, in anything, I will totally write a letter on your behalf. "Would this man have trouble writing a dissertation? What? How can you ask that? Seriously, have you read his lens reviews!??!!"

The irony is that I am terrible at academics as I don't have the discipline for a classroom environment. I regrettably admit to being the worst student one can think of - immense potential and cognitive ability eclipsed by laziness and lack of motivation. The greater irony (irony squared? lol) is that I'd love to be a teacher and I love teaching. I have a dream of teaching and coaching juniors and seniors in high school

Nonetheless, I really appreciate the kind words

Heie, first let me say I'm very appreciative of the reviews and writings by you; and also your service for our Country. You definitely are a person that not only can review cameras & equipment; but also write it in such a manner that it's not "dry & boring" reading. You keep the reader's interest up! My apologies for suggesting other lenses to be included; you are absolutely correct with what your idea of the 4 selected is; and we will be most excited to read your review! A "defishing" section would be most helpful, if you have the time to include it! Thanks again!

Thanks! I take immense pride in how these reviews are written and I really appreciate you saying that

So this is what we have so far. And by "what we have so far," I literally mean just the table of contents - that's it so far haha. Took some images today, but I may have to redo them all as I think it was too late in the day for optimal exposure consistency - it appears each comparison will comprise over 30 images to cover the necessary range of focal lengths and apertures between all four lenses (and you people want MORE lenses added to the mix?!), so it takes some time between the first and last shot of an entire test and I think I wasn't moving fast enough for the sun for each series as I want them as controlled as possible.

Anyway, here's the agenda



-Heie

[bertwert]

You forgot the "Which one looks sexier on the camera' page

I suspect this'll be a great review! Thanks for doing this

[Digitalis]

it is now considered by many Australians to be a cause for celebration to have a convict in one's lineage

Times do change, I think of it as being a bit bizarre to celebrate that you share a chromosome or two with a murderous, thieving distant relative that got caught, and shipped off to a place where death by octopus is entirely feasible. And in any case, both sides of my family came to Australia either before, or after the two world wars. So the chances of there being any convict history in my linage effectively nil.

[drypenn]

Times do change, I think of it as being a bit bizarre to celebrate that you share a chromosome or two with a murderous, thieving distant relative that got caught, and shipped off to a place where death by octopus is entirely feasible. And in any case, both sides of my family came to Australia either before, or after the two world wars. So the chances of there being any convict history in my linage effectively nil.

Darn, your beard and your genius at anything related to glasses makes me think that you have a direct lineage from Galileo (who was considered a "criminal" in his time!)

[Rondec]

Thank you, Alex, ahead of time for the work that you have already and will put into the review. I have always found your work to be well done and comprehensive. Maybe you can save a spot to drop in a comparison with the (soon to come?) 15-30 on the K-1...

I don't usually shoot quite as wide as these lenses go. I owned the 10-17 for awhile, but it was too wide (and too fishy) for me -- and I kept taking pictures of my feet too.