Prices for a new Sigma 8-16mm are rather low....

Prices for a new Sigma 8-16mm are rather low.... · 04:22 AM

I found this on Amazon.... get a new Sigma 8-16mm for $530. Has the new price been dropping lately?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B003G2A71G/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new

**sholtzma** · 11-10-2015, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Sandy Hancock

Personally, I would get the DA10-17 if you already have the 12-24 and like it. It is wider @ 10mm than the 8-16 @ 8mm, even after de-fishing in Lightroom's lens profile, and *much* wider uncorrected. The fisheye perspective gives you different creative options given that you already have an extremely wide rectilinear lens.

I had the 8-16 for a month, and really liked it. Images from that month can be seen HERE. I just love my DA10-17 and DA15 more, and couldn't justify keeping another big lens.

Thanks for the link to the Flickr shots. Some of them seem very sharp. Did you apply sharpening in post-processing?

Sandy Hancock · 11-10-2015, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by sholtzma

Thanks for the link to the Flickr shots. Some of them seem very sharp. Did you apply sharpening in post-processing?

Yes. Doesn't everyone?

cmohr · 11-11-2015, 03:37 AM

I have had all three, I purchased my 12-24 back on film, it's a cracker of a lens, I bought the 10-20, and found the barrel distortion just too much, I sold it in the end. I bought the 8-16, yes, it's wide, but, again, lots of distortion. I still have it, but use the 12-24 far more.

The 17-28 is excellent, as is the 10-17.

**WPRESTO** · 11-11-2015, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by sholtzma

I'm still trying to decide whether to keep my Pentax 12-24, or replace it with either a Sigma 8-16, a Sigma 10-20 f3.5, or a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6.

In any case, I had been checking out used versions of the 8-16mm and then was shocked to see the price new. Why would it have no warranty?

I haven't read through all the posts to see if anyone has given you advice, but here's my take on your choices:
1) The super wide-angle of the 8-16 is wonderful. It takes in almost as much left-right as my fish-eye. The IQ is more than one could hope. Major drawback is distortion at the edges, especially if the lens is not perfectly level, but that's true of any ultra-wide.
2) The 10-20 is much smaller, lighter, cheaper. Published tests suggest that the older variable-aperture version has better IQ, and it can be had for bargain prices (under $300).
3) 2mm difference in FL may not seem like much, but in WA it makes a significant difference. I could easily see the WA difference when I shifted from a 17-70 to the new 16-85.

If $ is tight, look for the older version of the 10~20. If you have the $, go for the 8-16. You'll be happier with either than with the 12-24.

Biro · 11-11-2015, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by howieb101

If you already have the Pentax 12-24 I don't think it's worth it. The Sigma 8-16mm is difficult and expensive to mount filters and is quite a heavy lens. I also believe there is too much overlap with the Pentax given it is a relatively expensive lens to add to your kit bag.

The fisheye gives you a quite different field and point of view and is super lightweight. I also believe it is different enough as well as being relatively inexpensive, especially in the USA.

Howie Be

Yup. Deep down I'm thinking the same thing. I just ordered a Pentax 10-17.

sholtzma
	View full profile
	Contact via private message
	Find other posts by sholtzma
	Find threads started by sholtzma
	Find threads in which sholtzma has posted

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 8-16mm UWA, White Kx (low low clicks), Rokinon 85mm f1.4	gda13	Sold Items	13	06-27-2015 08:17 PM
Sigma 8-16mm Aus Evilbay $639 Brand new	hakea	Pentax Price Watch	2	06-19-2014 11:06 PM
New Ricoh patent for a 16mm/2.8 lens designed for APS-C MILC	NickLarsson	Pentax News and Rumors	5	01-17-2014 09:05 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma Pentax 8-16mm, as new, 50mm 1.4 28mm 2.8 Sigma EF-610 flash	lfdp	Sold Items	5	05-06-2013 03:43 PM
Has anyone tried the new Sigma 8-16mm? Seems a hell of a lens...	Unsinkable II	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	05-25-2010 08:34 PM

11-10-2015, 08:56 PM	#16
sholtzma Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Salisbury, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,043 Original Poster	Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Personally, I would get the DA10-17 if you already have the 12-24 and like it. It is wider @ 10mm than the 8-16 @ 8mm, even after de-fishing in Lightroom's lens profile, and much wider uncorrected. The fisheye perspective gives you different creative options given that you already have an extremely wide rectilinear lens. I had the 8-16 for a month, and really liked it. Images from that month can be seen HERE. I just love my DA10-17 and DA15 more, and couldn't justify keeping another big lens. Thanks for the link to the Flickr shots. Some of them seem very sharp. Did you apply sharpening in post-processing?

11-10-2015, 09:42 PM	#17
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	Originally posted by sholtzma Thanks for the link to the Flickr shots. Some of them seem very sharp. Did you apply sharpening in post-processing? Yes. Doesn't everyone?

11-11-2015, 03:37 AM	#18
cmohr Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Brisbane. Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,824	I have had all three, I purchased my 12-24 back on film, it's a cracker of a lens, I bought the 10-20, and found the barrel distortion just too much, I sold it in the end. I bought the 8-16, yes, it's wide, but, again, lots of distortion. I still have it, but use the 12-24 far more. The 17-28 is excellent, as is the 10-17.

11-11-2015, 04:58 AM	#19
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,108	Originally posted by sholtzma I'm still trying to decide whether to keep my Pentax 12-24, or replace it with either a Sigma 8-16, a Sigma 10-20 f3.5, or a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. In any case, I had been checking out used versions of the 8-16mm and then was shocked to see the price new. Why would it have no warranty? I haven't read through all the posts to see if anyone has given you advice, but here's my take on your choices: 1) The super wide-angle of the 8-16 is wonderful. It takes in almost as much left-right as my fish-eye. The IQ is more than one could hope. Major drawback is distortion at the edges, especially if the lens is not perfectly level, but that's true of any ultra-wide. 2) The 10-20 is much smaller, lighter, cheaper. Published tests suggest that the older variable-aperture version has better IQ, and it can be had for bargain prices (under $300). 3) 2mm difference in FL may not seem like much, but in WA it makes a significant difference. I could easily see the WA difference when I shifted from a 17-70 to the new 16-85. If $ is tight, look for the older version of the 10~20. If you have the $, go for the 8-16. You'll be happier with either than with the 12-24.

11-11-2015, 09:33 PM	#20
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	Originally posted by howieb101 If you already have the Pentax 12-24 I don't think it's worth it. The Sigma 8-16mm is difficult and expensive to mount filters and is quite a heavy lens. I also believe there is too much overlap with the Pentax given it is a relatively expensive lens to add to your kit bag. The fisheye gives you a quite different field and point of view and is super lightweight. I also believe it is different enough as well as being relatively inexpensive, especially in the USA. Howie Be Yup. Deep down I'm thinking the same thing. I just ordered a Pentax 10-17.