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

normhead · 10-03-2012, 06:17 AM

JuzaPhoto - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC (vs Sigma 12-24 on FF)

I bet you thought there'd be more difference.

sqjaw · 10-03-2012, 08:54 AM

this confirms why I stay away from wide angles like these, 17-70 is fine for me: or 17 mm and above:

kenafein · 10-03-2012, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by sqjaw

this confirms why I stay away from wide angles like these, 17-70 is fine for me: or 17 mm and above:

I am a fan of wide angle, rectilinear, perspective distortion.

Pheo · 10-03-2012, 12:37 PM

Very happy with my 8-16mm here!

cali92rs · 10-03-2012, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by normhead

JuzaPhoto - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC (vs Sigma 12-24 on FF)

I bet you thought there'd be more difference.

I don't understand why there would be a lot of difference...they both offer similar AOVs, they are both Sigma lenses. I would expect very similar results.
Also, one would expect that FF and crop sensor differences should be very small with an ultra wide angle lens since the DOF is so big.

Clavius · 10-04-2012, 02:57 AM

I thought FF was supposed to have giant advantages over APSC in the wide-angle category?

This confirms my own findings. Because of the FF-hype, and because two of my customers demanded that I shoot FF, I purchased an old Canon 5D. (MK1) And I admit, it's lots of FUN mounting my old FF Pentax glass on FF, and the viewfinder is big and bright... but there it ends. Most of my "FF" glass, even FA's, vignette and suffer from corner softness on an FF camera. (Some like that, but I can't stand it.) So I still prefer to mount those on APSC as that takes advantage of only the best part of the lens. It only lacks the big viewfinder, but even THAT is overrated imho. A new APSC mirrorless with a big bright EVF would outperform that easily.

**Rondec** · 10-04-2012, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

I thought FF was supposed to have giant advantages over APSC in the wide-angle category?

This confirms my own findings. Because of the FF-hype, and because two of my customers demanded that I shoot FF, I purchased an old Canon 5D. (MK1) And I admit, it's lots of FUN mounting my old FF Pentax glass on FF, and the viewfinder is big and bright... but there it ends. Most of my "FF" glass, even FA's, vignette and suffer from corner softness on an FF camera. (Some like that, but I can't stand it.) So I still prefer to mount those on APSC as that takes advantage of only the best part of the lens. It only lacks the big viewfinder, but even THAT is overrated imho. A new APSC mirrorless with a big bright EVF would outperform that easily.

Well, the advantage for full frame is with wide angles with relatively narrow depth of field. If you shoot with your wide angle lenses stopped down, there really isn't that much advantage, but the poster there says that there just isn't really anything in APS-C that matches the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 on full frame (of course that is a 2000 dollar lens too).

normhead · 10-04-2012, 06:33 AM

This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening.

Unsinkable II · 10-04-2012, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by normhead

This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening.

Well, the Sigma 8-16 is great! I don't plan on buying a 12-24 anytime soon, even with the availability of FF bodies.

While wide should be APS-C's weak spot, the 8-16 kind of nullifies that.

Having said that, I am not experienced and talented enough to have DOF at extreme wide angles matter to me. Normally I like to get close and have the composition do the talking.

kenafein · 10-04-2012, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Unsinkable II

While wide should be APS-C's weak spot, the 8-16 kind of nullifies that.

Filters are a bit of an issue though. If you use a tripod you can hold gels in place.

Unsinkable II · 10-04-2012, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by kenafein

Filters are a bit of an issue though. If you use a tripod you can hold gels in place.

Good point. I perhaps too easily accepted no filters with the 8-16. I rarely use my tripods.

**Rondec** · 10-04-2012, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by normhead

This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening.

I just never shoot wider than 15mm (that's my widest lens) or, have any desire to do so. Full frame wouldn't change that fact one way or the other. I don't like the way things look at 12mm on full frame or, 8mm on APS-C. Some of my best landscape photos have been shot in the 30 to 70mm range. There is just less perspective distortion and often it is easier to isolate a specific feature that you want to focus on.

Pheo · 10-04-2012, 10:11 AM

Whatever you think of the guy he makes some valid points about how to use a UWA lens effectively!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

ironlionzion · 10-04-2012, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by normhead

This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening.

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?

kenafein · 10-04-2012, 11:56 AM

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?

Norm is a proponent of APS-C and feels that FF improvements are nominal. I think most of us agree that with a perfectly equivalent lens the image should be exactly the same, no surprise here. The problem is we rarely get truly equivalent lenses, especially at the extremes. I think FF has its place, and if they came out with a full frame NEX I'd buy one to use my lenses as they were intended.

10-03-2012, 06:17 AM	#1
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	A guy does a comparison Sigma 8-16 APS-c vs FF 12-24 JuzaPhoto - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC (vs Sigma 12-24 on FF) I bet you thought there'd be more difference.

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

10-03-2012, 08:54 AM	#2
sqjaw Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Quincy,Ma. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 224	this confirms why I stay away from wide angles like these, 17-70 is fine for me: or 17 mm and above:

10-03-2012, 11:29 AM	#3
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by sqjaw this confirms why I stay away from wide angles like these, 17-70 is fine for me: or 17 mm and above: I am a fan of wide angle, rectilinear, perspective distortion.

10-03-2012, 12:37 PM	#4
Pheo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brighton, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 311	Very happy with my 8-16mm here!

10-03-2012, 02:50 PM	#5
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by normhead JuzaPhoto - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DC (vs Sigma 12-24 on FF) I bet you thought there'd be more difference. I don't understand why there would be a lot of difference...they both offer similar AOVs, they are both Sigma lenses. I would expect very similar results. Also, one would expect that FF and crop sensor differences should be very small with an ultra wide angle lens since the DOF is so big.

10-04-2012, 02:57 AM	#6
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	I thought FF was supposed to have giant advantages over APSC in the wide-angle category? This confirms my own findings. Because of the FF-hype, and because two of my customers demanded that I shoot FF, I purchased an old Canon 5D. (MK1) And I admit, it's lots of FUN mounting my old FF Pentax glass on FF, and the viewfinder is big and bright... but there it ends. Most of my "FF" glass, even FA's, vignette and suffer from corner softness on an FF camera. (Some like that, but I can't stand it.) So I still prefer to mount those on APSC as that takes advantage of only the best part of the lens. It only lacks the big viewfinder, but even THAT is overrated imho. A new APSC mirrorless with a big bright EVF would outperform that easily.

10-04-2012, 03:07 AM	#7
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by Clavius I thought FF was supposed to have giant advantages over APSC in the wide-angle category? This confirms my own findings. Because of the FF-hype, and because two of my customers demanded that I shoot FF, I purchased an old Canon 5D. (MK1) And I admit, it's lots of FUN mounting my old FF Pentax glass on FF, and the viewfinder is big and bright... but there it ends. Most of my "FF" glass, even FA's, vignette and suffer from corner softness on an FF camera. (Some like that, but I can't stand it.) So I still prefer to mount those on APSC as that takes advantage of only the best part of the lens. It only lacks the big viewfinder, but even THAT is overrated imho. A new APSC mirrorless with a big bright EVF would outperform that easily. Well, the advantage for full frame is with wide angles with relatively narrow depth of field. If you shoot with your wide angle lenses stopped down, there really isn't that much advantage, but the poster there says that there just isn't really anything in APS-C that matches the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 on full frame (of course that is a 2000 dollar lens too).

10-04-2012, 06:33 AM	#8
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451 Original Poster	This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening.

10-04-2012, 07:58 AM	#9
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Originally posted by normhead This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening. Well, the Sigma 8-16 is great! I don't plan on buying a 12-24 anytime soon, even with the availability of FF bodies. While wide should be APS-C's weak spot, the 8-16 kind of nullifies that. Having said that, I am not experienced and talented enough to have DOF at extreme wide angles matter to me. Normally I like to get close and have the composition do the talking.

10-04-2012, 08:36 AM	#10
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	Originally posted by Unsinkable II While wide should be APS-C's weak spot, the 8-16 kind of nullifies that. Filters are a bit of an issue though. If you use a tripod you can hold gels in place.

10-04-2012, 08:49 AM	#11
Unsinkable II Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 1,352	Originally posted by kenafein Filters are a bit of an issue though. If you use a tripod you can hold gels in place. Good point. I perhaps too easily accepted no filters with the 8-16. I rarely use my tripods.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2012, 08:54 AM	#12
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by normhead This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening. I just never shoot wider than 15mm (that's my widest lens) or, have any desire to do so. Full frame wouldn't change that fact one way or the other. I don't like the way things look at 12mm on full frame or, 8mm on APS-C. Some of my best landscape photos have been shot in the 30 to 70mm range. There is just less perspective distortion and often it is easier to isolate a specific feature that you want to focus on.

10-04-2012, 10:11 AM	#13
Pheo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Brighton, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 311	Whatever you think of the guy he makes some valid points about how to use a UWA lens effectively! http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm

10-04-2012, 11:10 AM	#14
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Originally posted by normhead This has to be the least discussed FF thread of all time. The silence is deafening. 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?

10-04-2012, 11:56 AM	#15
kenafein Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Southern California Photos: Albums Posts: 4,082	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? Norm is a proponent of APS-C and feels that FF improvements are nominal. I think most of us agree that with a perfectly equivalent lens the image should be exactly the same, no surprise here. The problem is we rarely get truly equivalent lenses, especially at the extremes. I think FF has its place, and if they came out with a full frame NEX I'd buy one to use my lenses as they were intended.