A guy does a comparison Sigma 8-16 APS-c vs FF 12-24

**Rondec** · 10-04-2012, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

Great you showed a guy comparing the Sigma 8-16 vs a Sigma 12-24. Isn't the 12-24 a decade old design? Most people agree that the new 8-16 is awesome. If you can show that the 8-16 wins over the 12-24 FF equivalents from Nikon and Canon, then maybe we can start discussing something. All you've shown is that the newly designed 8-16 on APS-C beats out the 12-24 on FF, and that the 12-24 is basically not worth the money.

So what are you trying to prove?

I think the point is that if you shoot stopped down, you can't tell the difference between APS-C and full frame. Shoot a DA limited 15 at f8 and a full frame lens (whichever 22mm) at f11 and you really won't see significant difference. The issue isn't how new the lenses are, the issue is whether or not you are shooting stopped down. The benefit of full frame is with wide angles and wider apertures.

ironlionzion · 10-04-2012, 12:52 PM

The 8-16 is the clear winner at the edges. The "age" of the design doesn't matter, but the optical design does. My point is that they are different lenses, although they are APS-C/FF FOV equivalents. The author of the comparison even states that his 12-24 is not a good copy. So comparing those two lenses to add "evidence" to the argument that FF is a nominal improvement over APS-C has no scientific basis. The author even states that for ultimate wide angle, get the FF Nikkor 14-24.

What the comparison does prove is that the 8-16 is a great lens. Nothing more, nothing less.

normhead · 10-04-2012, 03:43 PM

Some would argue that it proves you can get by with APS-c.

Quote:

Norm is a proponent of APS-C and feels that FF improvements are nominal.

Jeeze I have to start quoting you. I'm never that precise.

Quote:

The author of the comparison even states that his 12-24 is not a good copy.

Given that I've been told that your worst lens on FF is better than your best lens on APS-c I'd say it throws new light on the topic. (Another APS-c vs FF myth hits the dust.) I've been told that theoretically you will always suffer a loss of image quality with APS-c vs FF. So, I guess I waiting for the deluge of theoretical ruminations explaining the above result. Given the beatings I've taken on this topic... I'm actually quite astounded that the APS-c lens came out this good. Nothing I have read on this forum prepared me for those results. It's all been FF this , FF that. I guess it might be time to revisit some of the theories that have been proposed as gospel , to see if they can be tweaked to explain this series of tests. As Jack Bauer would say..."Something's not right here."

If you want to assume that it just means the 8-16 is a great lens, it's an APS-c lens, not an FF lens, so it still means as previously argued , that it has leveled the APS-c FF playing field in terms of extreme wide angle lenses, negating that portion of the FF advantage.

cali92rs · 10-04-2012, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by normhead

Given that I've been told that your worst lens on FF is better than your best lens on APS-c I'd say it throws new light on the topic. (Another APS-c vs FF myth hits the dust.)

Did someone really say that? Or are you exaggerating to make your point?
I would love to see that quote.

normhead · 10-04-2012, 04:30 PM

jsherman quoted it on this forum... he had a link, the idea has been floated in various forms many times. What thread it was in I have no idea. Go back through all his posts if you really want to see it. And certainly many have quoted endless arguments as to why FF IQ is better than APs-c IQ. Not only that, an FF can achieve better DoF and better narrow focus. The arguments are endless. All they need now is a real world example.

My argument would be that most of the percieved weaknesses of APS-c can be overcome if you know your photography and that up to prints of 20x30 you can get it done with APS-c 90% of the time. If you feel you need to include the last 10% in your repertoire, you need FF. SUch ideas are considered blasphemous in the FF sections of this forum and are persecuted religiously.

ironlionzion · 10-04-2012, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by cali92rs

Did someone really say that? Or are you exaggerating to make your point?

It's possible one of the thousands of members in this forum said that. Or someone else in the internats. Probably Ken Rockwell. Either way, he must have been dumb. Clearly there are mannnyyyyy examples to dispel that myth. This might be new light on a topic that's frankly quite well lit.

Originally posted by normhead

so it still means as previously argued , that it has leveled the APS-c FF playing field in terms of extreme wide angle lenses, negating that portion of the FF advantage.

What if I show you a crappy medium format lens stuck on a 645D then compared it to a nice point and shoot like the S100. If the S100 outperformed the 645D+crappy lens, does that mean point and shoots are as good as digital medium formats?

Clavius · 10-05-2012, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

What if I show you a crappy medium format lens stuck on a 645D then compared it to a nice point and shoot like the S100. If the S100 outperformed the 645D+crappy lens, does that mean point and shoots are as good as digital medium formats?

That metaphore isn't entirely valid. The 8-16 isn't all that good. The barrel distortion is a royal PITA. Having to defish images from a "rectingular" lens is stupid. And the borders are pretty soft. Soft enough to crop off of every image. I returned mine after a week of trying to make it work.

So I don't see how this is the best lens on apsc vs worst lens on FF.

ironlionzion · 10-05-2012, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

So I don't see how this is the best lens on apsc vs worst lens on FF

What? I didn't say 8-16 is the best lens on APS-C and the 12-24 is the worst on FF. Nor did I say the S100 is the best point and shoot. All I'm saying is you can't come to the conclusion that "hey look APS-C is just as good or better than FF in the wide angle category" based off one persons review of two different lenses (especially since he says his FF lens is a bad copy).

Clavius · 10-05-2012, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

What? I didn't say 8-16 is the best lens on APS-C and the 12-24 is the worst on FF. Nor did I say the S100 is the best point and shoot. All I'm saying is you can't come to the conclusion that "hey look APS-C is just as good or better than FF in the wide angle category" based off one persons review of two different lenses (especially since he says his FF lens is a bad copy).

Ok, so point remains that a mediocre lens on APSC outperforms a crappy lens on FF in an area where FF should have the main advantage (UWA) for a fraction of the cost.

That he has a bad copy of the 12-24 is very doubtfull too. When one has to pay THAT amount of money for a lens copy variance is completely unacceptable. One always returns that to the store to try others.

ironlionzion · 10-05-2012, 05:50 AM

It's true, it adds a shadow of doubt to his results. But take a look at this. LensRentals.com - Notes on Lens and Camera Variation

Even for nice macro lenses there is a margin of play. I read somewhere else that older Sigma lenses, although on average quite good, had large variations in quality which is partly why people avoided them. Supposedly they've cracked down on their manufacturing tolerances.

**Rondec** · 10-05-2012, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Ok, so point remains that a mediocre lens on APSC outperforms a crappy lens on FF in an area where FF should have the main advantage (UWA) for a fraction of the cost.

That he has a bad copy of the 12-24 is very doubtfull too. When one has to pay THAT amount of money for a lens copy variance is completely unacceptable. One always returns that to the store to try others.

Ultrawides are ultrawides. Other than getting a Nikon 14-24 f2.8, most of the lenses that are this wide on full frame show distortion and weak corners. That's just what they do. Some copies may be a little better, some a little worse. Anyway, I just don't think the 8-16 is that bad. I have seen plenty of examples showing it to be decent for what it is (not that I want a copy, as I said before, I don't really do ultra wide).

Norm's point still stands. There are really some people who tout the benefits of full frame because you can use cheaper lenses to get "the same results" as with APS-C. Doesn't seem to translate into the ultra wide area.

ihasa · 10-05-2012, 06:29 AM

For me, UWAs are the last reason I would go FF. The high quality of the Sigma 8-16 is well known, and the lack of an *affordable* FF alternative would give me pause before switching to a full frame system. Replacing something like the DA14 with a 24/2.8 to get the same fov (and less dof at max. aperture) on FF, or a 24/1.4 on APSC with a 35/2 on FF to get the same fov/dof in a smaller cheaper lens, or a 35/1.4 on APSC with a 50/2 to get the same fov/dof in a smaller cheaper lens, are attractive ideas though. But these arguments are well rehearsed. For me personally, they aren't strong enough arguments to make me go for a shiny new FF camera. But maybe enough to pick up an older used body, or shoot 135 film more often.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
This guy again... (Nikon D7000 Trumps Pentax K5 guy)	Eagle_Friends	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	69	08-26-2013 10:59 AM
Tamron and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Autofocus Speed Comparison	darrenleow	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	07-26-2011 12:59 PM
Tamron Vs Sigma (Kit replacement) f 2.8 comparison	genez	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	05-10-2011 09:23 PM
Comparison: 35mm, APS-C (lots of pics)	zplus	Pentax DSLR Discussion	36	09-08-2009 10:20 AM
Comparison - APS-C, 35mm, 645MedFmt	architorture	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	06-01-2009 04:04 AM

10-04-2012, 12:24 PM	#16
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by ironlionzion Great you showed a guy comparing the Sigma 8-16 vs a Sigma 12-24. Isn't the 12-24 a decade old design? Most people agree that the new 8-16 is awesome. If you can show that the 8-16 wins over the 12-24 FF equivalents from Nikon and Canon, then maybe we can start discussing something. All you've shown is that the newly designed 8-16 on APS-C beats out the 12-24 on FF, and that the 12-24 is basically not worth the money. So what are you trying to prove? I think the point is that if you shoot stopped down, you can't tell the difference between APS-C and full frame. Shoot a DA limited 15 at f8 and a full frame lens (whichever 22mm) at f11 and you really won't see significant difference. The issue isn't how new the lenses are, the issue is whether or not you are shooting stopped down. The benefit of full frame is with wide angles and wider apertures.

10-04-2012, 12:52 PM	#17
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	The 8-16 is the clear winner at the edges. The "age" of the design doesn't matter, but the optical design does. My point is that they are different lenses, although they are APS-C/FF FOV equivalents. The author of the comparison even states that his 12-24 is not a good copy. So comparing those two lenses to add "evidence" to the argument that FF is a nominal improvement over APS-C has no scientific basis. The author even states that for ultimate wide angle, get the FF Nikkor 14-24. What the comparison does prove is that the 8-16 is a great lens. Nothing more, nothing less.

10-04-2012, 03:43 PM	#18
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	Some would argue that it proves you can get by with APS-c. Quote: Norm is a proponent of APS-C and feels that FF improvements are nominal. Jeeze I have to start quoting you. I'm never that precise. Quote: The author of the comparison even states that his 12-24 is not a good copy. Given that I've been told that your worst lens on FF is better than your best lens on APS-c I'd say it throws new light on the topic. (Another APS-c vs FF myth hits the dust.) I've been told that theoretically you will always suffer a loss of image quality with APS-c vs FF. So, I guess I waiting for the deluge of theoretical ruminations explaining the above result. Given the beatings I've taken on this topic... I'm actually quite astounded that the APS-c lens came out this good. Nothing I have read on this forum prepared me for those results. It's all been FF this , FF that. I guess it might be time to revisit some of the theories that have been proposed as gospel , to see if they can be tweaked to explain this series of tests. As Jack Bauer would say..."Something's not right here." If you want to assume that it just means the 8-16 is a great lens, it's an APS-c lens, not an FF lens, so it still means as previously argued , that it has leveled the APS-c FF playing field in terms of extreme wide angle lenses, negating that portion of the FF advantage.

10-04-2012, 04:18 PM	#19
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by normhead Given that I've been told that your worst lens on FF is better than your best lens on APS-c I'd say it throws new light on the topic. (Another APS-c vs FF myth hits the dust.) Did someone really say that? Or are you exaggerating to make your point? I would love to see that quote.

10-04-2012, 04:30 PM	#20
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	jsherman quoted it on this forum... he had a link, the idea has been floated in various forms many times. What thread it was in I have no idea. Go back through all his posts if you really want to see it. And certainly many have quoted endless arguments as to why FF IQ is better than APs-c IQ. Not only that, an FF can achieve better DoF and better narrow focus. The arguments are endless. All they need now is a real world example. My argument would be that most of the percieved weaknesses of APS-c can be overcome if you know your photography and that up to prints of 20x30 you can get it done with APS-c 90% of the time. If you feel you need to include the last 10% in your repertoire, you need FF. SUch ideas are considered blasphemous in the FF sections of this forum and are persecuted religiously.

10-04-2012, 04:34 PM	#21
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Originally posted by cali92rs Did someone really say that? Or are you exaggerating to make your point? It's possible one of the thousands of members in this forum said that. Or someone else in the internats. Probably Ken Rockwell. Either way, he must have been dumb. Clearly there are mannnyyyyy examples to dispel that myth. This might be new light on a topic that's frankly quite well lit. Originally posted by normhead so it still means as previously argued , that it has leveled the APS-c FF playing field in terms of extreme wide angle lenses, negating that portion of the FF advantage. What if I show you a crappy medium format lens stuck on a 645D then compared it to a nice point and shoot like the S100. If the S100 outperformed the 645D+crappy lens, does that mean point and shoots are as good as digital medium formats?

10-05-2012, 04:06 AM	#22
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by ironlionzion What if I show you a crappy medium format lens stuck on a 645D then compared it to a nice point and shoot like the S100. If the S100 outperformed the 645D+crappy lens, does that mean point and shoots are as good as digital medium formats? That metaphore isn't entirely valid. The 8-16 isn't all that good. The barrel distortion is a royal PITA. Having to defish images from a "rectingular" lens is stupid. And the borders are pretty soft. Soft enough to crop off of every image. I returned mine after a week of trying to make it work. So I don't see how this is the best lens on apsc vs worst lens on FF.

10-05-2012, 05:20 AM	#23
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Originally posted by Clavius So I don't see how this is the best lens on apsc vs worst lens on FF What? I didn't say 8-16 is the best lens on APS-C and the 12-24 is the worst on FF. Nor did I say the S100 is the best point and shoot. All I'm saying is you can't come to the conclusion that "hey look APS-C is just as good or better than FF in the wide angle category" based off one persons review of two different lenses (especially since he says his FF lens is a bad copy).

10-05-2012, 05:41 AM	#24
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by ironlionzion What? I didn't say 8-16 is the best lens on APS-C and the 12-24 is the worst on FF. Nor did I say the S100 is the best point and shoot. All I'm saying is you can't come to the conclusion that "hey look APS-C is just as good or better than FF in the wide angle category" based off one persons review of two different lenses (especially since he says his FF lens is a bad copy). Ok, so point remains that a mediocre lens on APSC outperforms a crappy lens on FF in an area where FF should have the main advantage (UWA) for a fraction of the cost. That he has a bad copy of the 12-24 is very doubtfull too. When one has to pay THAT amount of money for a lens copy variance is completely unacceptable. One always returns that to the store to try others.

10-05-2012, 05:50 AM	#25
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	It's true, it adds a shadow of doubt to his results. But take a look at this. LensRentals.com - Notes on Lens and Camera Variation Even for nice macro lenses there is a margin of play. I read somewhere else that older Sigma lenses, although on average quite good, had large variations in quality which is partly why people avoided them. Supposedly they've cracked down on their manufacturing tolerances.

10-05-2012, 06:14 AM	#26
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Clavius Ok, so point remains that a mediocre lens on APSC outperforms a crappy lens on FF in an area where FF should have the main advantage (UWA) for a fraction of the cost. That he has a bad copy of the 12-24 is very doubtfull too. When one has to pay THAT amount of money for a lens copy variance is completely unacceptable. One always returns that to the store to try others. Ultrawides are ultrawides. Other than getting a Nikon 14-24 f2.8, most of the lenses that are this wide on full frame show distortion and weak corners. That's just what they do. Some copies may be a little better, some a little worse. Anyway, I just don't think the 8-16 is that bad. I have seen plenty of examples showing it to be decent for what it is (not that I want a copy, as I said before, I don't really do ultra wide). Norm's point still stands. There are really some people who tout the benefits of full frame because you can use cheaper lenses to get "the same results" as with APS-C. Doesn't seem to translate into the ultra wide area.

10-05-2012, 06:29 AM	#27
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	For me, UWAs are the last reason I would go FF. The high quality of the Sigma 8-16 is well known, and the lack of an affordable FF alternative would give me pause before switching to a full frame system. Replacing something like the DA14 with a 24/2.8 to get the same fov (and less dof at max. aperture) on FF, or a 24/1.4 on APSC with a 35/2 on FF to get the same fov/dof in a smaller cheaper lens, or a 35/1.4 on APSC with a 50/2 to get the same fov/dof in a smaller cheaper lens, are attractive ideas though. But these arguments are well rehearsed. For me personally, they aren't strong enough arguments to make me go for a shiny new FF camera. But maybe enough to pick up an older used body, or shoot 135 film more often.