Originally posted by arv Indeed, as Sandy states, that is the volume deformation, correctable with DXO ViewPoint (
see the tutorial).
A.
With my Sigma 8-16 also rectilinear, if there are people in the image they have to be in the centre of the image, where they look at all and skinny, at the edges, they are short little fat people. My wife won't even let me take a picture of her with it unless she's close to the centre of the frame.
These lenses are hazardous to your well being. Tess stands over me and makes sure any short fat Tess's are deleted, or I'd post examples.
I note that the Sigma 8-16 is now over $1000 CAD as well. It's big thing? It's corrected down to 12mm, which is pretty impressive. Really impressive for buildings. Not so much for portraits. Maybe it's the 31's rep that is the problem here. If you just think "the 31 is a great lens" without checking what people use it for, you may have bought the wrong lens.
My first rule of the review section, is find someone who shots what you shoot. Find out what pictures look like what you want to shoot, buy that lens. Looking at a few 31 images used a group portrait lens might have saved some again here. SO my advice would be , back up, use a 50, or back up even more and use a 70.
But folks who do this kind of shooting on a regular basis probably have better ideas. It's definitely a known issue. When I do group beach shots etc, of my camping buddies, you can see Tess weaselling her way to the centre of the frame, by nook or by crook. It doesn't matter what lens I'm using , she doesn't take chances.Pity the should who get's in her way.
Her refrain is "What kind of photographer are you? You knew that was going to make me look short and fat."
I set of shrug and say " I was thinking about other things."
If you are shooting people, don't imagine for a second this kind of thing won't be taken personally.
You will be hated.
If shooting wide angle, that thing about not having your subject in the centre of the frame? Corp in post. Don't shoot that way.