SIGMA 8-16mm CLUB

snipenekkid · 09-22-2014, 05:22 PM - **1 Like**

MAP = Minimum Advertised Price -- this allows the MFG not the retailer to control the advertised price allowed. It's why you see "add to cart to see price" or similar language in online listings or a "Call for Price" in print ads. Basically it stops retailers from using a loss leader or otherwise controlling prices of the things they are selling. Have you ever wondered why lenses are pretty much the same price everywhere you look? It's because the maker is setting the lower limits retailers can use in ads.

It gets messy from here and deserves it's own thread, I don't wanna pollute this one. But if you Google "MAP agreement" there is a fair amount of info.

when-daybreaks · 09-22-2014, 08:05 PM - **1 Like**

Oh wow .. Well thanks for all info.

richardwong · 09-23-2014, 01:20 PM

Norm - those are great shots. The rendering looks a lot better than the Sigma lenses I have currently. Did you do any pp with them?

Originally posted by normhead

Some of my more "finished" images from my most recent trip... all Sigma 8-16 images @ 8mm

---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 01:21 PM ----------

QCdude - nice shots!

Originally posted by QCdude

Adirondak, NY

Long lake

Indian Lake

---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 01:29 PM ----------

Digitalis- very nice shot.

Originally posted by Digitalis

Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC

richardwong · 10-06-2014, 08:27 AM - **1 Like**

Hi everyone - I'd like your help in telling me if the photos here other than the 8mm one are clear or out of focus. This is a 16mm one which I don't think is very sharp. F13, 1/90s, ISO 200, sharpness: hard

---------- Post added 10-06-14 at 08:29 AM ----------

Here's another shot at 12mm which I think is sharper. It's even cropped. What do you guys think? Thanks
f13, 1/45s, ISO 100

Last edited by richardwong; 10-06-2014 at 07:43 PM. Reason: added exif info

QCdude · 10-06-2014, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by richardwong

Hi everyone - I'd like your help in telling me if the photos here other than the 8mm one are clear or out of focus. This is a 16mm one which I don't think is very sharp.

[ . . .

[/COLOR]Here's another shot at 12mm which I think is sharper. It's even cropped. What do you guys think? Thanks

. . .

would you mind to post the full EXIF information for both pics? I don't see it even on Flickr, it looks like your converter strips it off completely.
EXIF would make it easier to tell.
i.e. some aperture, focus length and shuttep speed combination can be unfavorable, so this wouldn't make sense to blame the lens.

johnc · 10-06-2014, 01:34 PM

5 shot HDR with the 8-16.

Badly regretted no tripod, but managed to snatch this by wedging the camera onto a pew!

Hope you like
John

**dadipentak** · 10-06-2014, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by johnc

Hope you like

I do!

richardwong · 10-06-2014, 08:18 PM

QCdude - thanks. I've added the EXIF info and I don't blame the lens at all for clarity. Don't all lenses have their sweet spots, I'm just trying to determine that here. I have the DA15 as well so I have that as a backup if the higher end of this lens isn't as good as the Da15. All feedback is welcome

Originally posted by QCdude

would you mind to post the full EXIF information for both pics? I don't see it even on Flickr, it looks like your converter strips it off completely.
EXIF would make it easier to tell.
i.e. some aperture, focus length and shuttep speed combination can be unfavorable, so this wouldn't make sense to blame the lens.

**Digitalis** · 10-06-2014, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by richardwong

I have the DA15 as well so I have that as a backup if the higher end of this lens isn't as good as the Da15

From my experience the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is optically superior at 15mm with the exception of flare tolerance. The DA15mm f/4 is remarkable in how resistant it is to flare, I'd have to say the built in lens hood is rather superfluous.

richardwong · 10-06-2014, 09:14 PM

Digitalis-thanks. I probably need more experience with the Sigma. You may be right about the flare resistance of the Da15 which might seem like it has better clarity?

Originally posted by Digitalis

From my experience the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is optically superior at 15mm with the exception of flare tolerance. The DA15mm f/4 is remarkable in how resistant it is to flare, I'd have to say the built in lens hood is rather superfluous.

civiletti · 10-07-2014, 02:36 PM

There are few instances when f13 would be a good choice with such a wide lens. Diffusion reduces both resolution and contrast. F8 would have been better for those two images.

QCdude · 10-07-2014, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

There are few instances when f13 would be a good choice with such a wide lens. Diffusion reduces both resolution and contrast. F8 would have been better for those two images.

this is what I was going to tell

)
I can hardly imagine the need to go more than f8 and it is the peak of resolution.

**Digitalis** · 10-07-2014, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by civiletti

there are few instances when f13 would be a good choice with such a wide lens.

Wideangle lenses need to be stopped down - it's the only way to effectively deal with field curvature and astigmatism that is inevitably in the corners. Even with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 I will regularly stop down to f/11 so that the lens is sharp across the entire frame, diffraction be damned. Using a super wide angle lens you aren't going to get shallow Dof effects like you can with a 50mm f/1.4 lens - so wider apertures aren't all that important.

normhead · 10-07-2014, 06:22 PM - **1 Like**

Aperture ƒ5.6, Camera- K-3, Shutter- AV

Sigma 8-16

richardwong · 10-07-2014, 06:41 PM

Thanks QCdude and civiletti. I'll definitely try the same location at f5.6 and f8 instead and see the results.

Originally posted by QCdude

this is what I was going to tell

)
I can hardly imagine the need to go more than f8 and it is the peak of resolution.

---------- Post added 10-07-14 at 06:47 PM ----------

Digitalis - Thanks for this as well. I thought I had read somewhere about the field curvature and astigmatism, was it from you

Originally posted by Digitalis

Wideangle lenses need to be stopped down - it's the only way to effectively deal with field curvature and astigmatism that is inevitably in the corners. Even with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 I will regularly stop down to f/11 so that the lens is sharp across the entire frame, diffraction be damned. Using a super wide angle you aren't going to get shallow Dof effects like you can with a 50mm f/1.4 lens - so wider apertures aren't all that important.

10-06-2014, 01:34 PM	#591
johnc Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: United Kingdom Photos: Albums Posts: 735	Freiburger Münster 5 shot HDR with the 8-16. Badly regretted no tripod, but managed to snatch this by wedging the camera onto a pew! Hope you like John Last edited by johnc; 10-06-2014 at 02:17 PM.

10-07-2014, 05:26 PM	#598
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by civiletti there are few instances when f13 would be a good choice with such a wide lens. Wideangle lenses need to be stopped down - it's the only way to effectively deal with field curvature and astigmatism that is inevitably in the corners. Even with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 I will regularly stop down to f/11 so that the lens is sharp across the entire frame, diffraction be damned. Using a super wide angle lens you aren't going to get shallow Dof effects like you can with a 50mm f/1.4 lens - so wider apertures aren't all that important. Last edited by Digitalis; 10-07-2014 at 07:22 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 8-16mm Review	viking79	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	14	02-15-2018 04:56 AM
What about Sigma 8-16mm??	mikiresty	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	06-19-2010 04:00 AM
When does the 8-16mm sigma come out?	WerTicus	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	05-16-2010 01:13 PM
Sigma 8-16mm Preorder	Nerdold Nerdith	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	04-20-2010 05:54 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro, Sigma 16mm f2.8 Filtermatic Fisheye, K20D, K100D Super	jfirneno	Sold Items	16	02-05-2010 06:46 AM

09-22-2014, 05:22 PM - 1 Like	#586
snipenekkid Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 95	MAP = Minimum Advertised Price -- this allows the MFG not the retailer to control the advertised price allowed. It's why you see "add to cart to see price" or similar language in online listings or a "Call for Price" in print ads. Basically it stops retailers from using a loss leader or otherwise controlling prices of the things they are selling. Have you ever wondered why lenses are pretty much the same price everywhere you look? It's because the maker is setting the lower limits retailers can use in ads. It gets messy from here and deserves it's own thread, I don't wanna pollute this one. But if you Google "MAP agreement" there is a fair amount of info.

09-22-2014, 08:05 PM - 1 Like	#587
when-daybreaks Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Ohio Posts: 72	Oh wow .. Well thanks for all info.

09-23-2014, 01:20 PM	#588
richardwong Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 671	Norm - those are great shots. The rendering looks a lot better than the Sigma lenses I have currently. Did you do any pp with them? Originally posted by normhead Some of my more "finished" images from my most recent trip... all Sigma 8-16 images @ 8mm ---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 01:21 PM ---------- QCdude - nice shots! Originally posted by QCdude Adirondak, NY Long lake Indian Lake ---------- Post added 09-23-14 at 01:29 PM ---------- Digitalis- very nice shot. Originally posted by Digitalis Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC

10-06-2014, 08:27 AM - 1 Like	#589
richardwong Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 671	Hi everyone - I'd like your help in telling me if the photos here other than the 8mm one are clear or out of focus. This is a 16mm one which I don't think is very sharp. F13, 1/90s, ISO 200, sharpness: hard ---------- Post added 10-06-14 at 08:29 AM ---------- Here's another shot at 12mm which I think is sharper. It's even cropped. What do you guys think? Thanks f13, 1/45s, ISO 100 Last edited by richardwong; 10-06-2014 at 07:43 PM. Reason: added exif info

10-06-2014, 09:06 AM	#590
QCdude Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 87	Originally posted by richardwong Hi everyone - I'd like your help in telling me if the photos here other than the 8mm one are clear or out of focus. This is a 16mm one which I don't think is very sharp. [ . . . [/COLOR]Here's another shot at 12mm which I think is sharper. It's even cropped. What do you guys think? Thanks . . . would you mind to post the full EXIF information for both pics? I don't see it even on Flickr, it looks like your converter strips it off completely. EXIF would make it easier to tell. i.e. some aperture, focus length and shuttep speed combination can be unfavorable, so this wouldn't make sense to blame the lens.

10-06-2014, 02:10 PM	#592
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by johnc Hope you like I do!

10-06-2014, 08:18 PM	#593
richardwong Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 671	QCdude - thanks. I've added the EXIF info and I don't blame the lens at all for clarity. Don't all lenses have their sweet spots, I'm just trying to determine that here. I have the DA15 as well so I have that as a backup if the higher end of this lens isn't as good as the Da15. All feedback is welcome Originally posted by QCdude would you mind to post the full EXIF information for both pics? I don't see it even on Flickr, it looks like your converter strips it off completely. EXIF would make it easier to tell. i.e. some aperture, focus length and shuttep speed combination can be unfavorable, so this wouldn't make sense to blame the lens.

10-06-2014, 09:04 PM	#594
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by richardwong I have the DA15 as well so I have that as a backup if the higher end of this lens isn't as good as the Da15 From my experience the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is optically superior at 15mm with the exception of flare tolerance. The DA15mm f/4 is remarkable in how resistant it is to flare, I'd have to say the built in lens hood is rather superfluous.

10-06-2014, 09:14 PM	#595
richardwong Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 671	Digitalis-thanks. I probably need more experience with the Sigma. You may be right about the flare resistance of the Da15 which might seem like it has better clarity? Originally posted by Digitalis From my experience the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 is optically superior at 15mm with the exception of flare tolerance. The DA15mm f/4 is remarkable in how resistant it is to flare, I'd have to say the built in lens hood is rather superfluous.

10-07-2014, 02:36 PM	#596
civiletti Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Oregon Photos: Albums Posts: 1,435	There are few instances when f13 would be a good choice with such a wide lens. Diffusion reduces both resolution and contrast. F8 would have been better for those two images.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2014, 04:11 PM	#597
QCdude Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 87	Originally posted by civiletti There are few instances when f13 would be a good choice with such a wide lens. Diffusion reduces both resolution and contrast. F8 would have been better for those two images. this is what I was going to tell ) I can hardly imagine the need to go more than f8 and it is the peak of resolution.

10-07-2014, 06:22 PM - 1 Like	#599
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Aperture ƒ5.6, Camera- K-3, Shutter- AV Sigma 8-16

10-07-2014, 06:41 PM	#600
richardwong Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 671	Thanks QCdude and civiletti. I'll definitely try the same location at f5.6 and f8 instead and see the results. Originally posted by QCdude this is what I was going to tell ) I can hardly imagine the need to go more than f8 and it is the peak of resolution. ---------- Post added 10-07-14 at 06:47 PM ---------- Digitalis - Thanks for this as well. I thought I had read somewhere about the field curvature and astigmatism, was it from you Originally posted by Digitalis Wideangle lenses need to be stopped down - it's the only way to effectively deal with field curvature and astigmatism that is inevitably in the corners. Even with the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 I will regularly stop down to f/11 so that the lens is sharp across the entire frame, diffraction be damned. Using a super wide angle you aren't going to get shallow Dof effects like you can with a 50mm f/1.4 lens - so wider apertures aren't all that important.