I'd like to see some samples, yeh that would be great.
The thing is Sir,
The shots you posted were taken at approximately 0 degrees horizontal, the lens was not pointed up or down. As soon as you point a lens up or down you exaggerate its perspective character immensely.
I am not trying to say your lens is not good. It is a stunning lens. I hear the resolution is fantastic on it and when I used one last I thought the handling and the fun-ness of the lens were almost good enough to make me buy it over a standard wide angle. However I was buying mine for landscapes - I don't think fisheyes can handle landscapes unless for creative effect or unless you're shooting at 0 degrees horizontal and vertical - this means no rule of thirds for the horizon.
I would think that the OP wants to do landscapes with his?
Fred Lindsey wrote:
I don't think fisheyes can handle landscapes unless for creative effect or unless you're shooting at 0 degrees horizontal and vertical - this means no rule of thirds for the horizon.
I would think that the OP wants to do landscapes with his?
Don't forget, super wide angle lens like your Sigma is also prone to distortion. Chances are many photos posted online has gone through some sort of correction process.
I'm actually buying this Tokina for landscape after browsing through the fisheye thread here. There are some truly fantastic shots in there.
I personally am not planning on shooting high volume in one setting anyway so I don't mind spending a bit of time de-fishing the photos should the need arises.
okay Fred... thank you very much for the sample shots.
About the canon 17-55mm I don't need this fast lens. Also fish-eye is not my type.
The reason why I'm inclining for the Canon 10-22mm is its nearly distortion free, sharpness and compatibility [ meaning it will work on any EOS crop bodies without any problems ]
Now here are my questions about the sigma:
1. How does the distortion compared to sigma?
2. EOS compatiblity? Will this work on any Canon EOS current & future? [ I heard things about sigma eos-body-compatibility problems]
3. Sigma sharpness compared to Canon 10-22mm?
Right now I narrowed them out [Canon 10-22 & Sigma 10-20]... please give me more insights why I should get the the SIGMA.
oh by the way does the SIGMA has all-metal chassis?
FRED: I will use the lens for LANDSCAPES ONLY... & yeah I don't mind carrying tripod all the time... the quality shots I want to make is: DEEP DOF, atleast NO DISTORTION and ULTRA SHARP from corner to corner...--- well atleast just name a lens that can do that I'll buy it.
ALEK: I like that shot... looks all natural to me, even colors are good under bright sunlight......... did you do some distortion & color corrections?
I chose the Tokina 11-16. Why? It is sharper wide open than the Canon even stepped down. The corner by in the regions of around a whopping 30% (Photozone analysis data) which is invaluable for landscape. The Canon does however have a faster AF and a closer minimum focus distance. Not to mention the obvious longer zoom range. But I already have the Canon 17-55 should I need a longer focal length. The constant f/2.8 is just icing on the cake.
From the tests I've seen, and I have viewed and analysised a lot, the Sigma compares favourably. Below are a few links and a few more sample shots for you to look at -
I think the Sigma is a good lens, but I think the Canon is a little better. The question here is whether you want the best value or the best lens. The Sigma is a better value. I think the Canon is a little better lens. It is a tiny bit sharper. I has a little less distortion and this distortion is more even. The Sigma's distortion is more extreme on the edges than in the center, which makes it quite a bit harder to correct in post processing. The Canon is very resistant to flare for a lens this wide. The Sigma seems to be no better or no worse than one would expect for a lens this wide. IMO, the question is whether this little bit of improved performance is with the extra 250 to 300 dollars. Basically a question of whether you want the best lens or the best value. I hope this helps.
The 10-22 does not have more distortion than the others in this range. In fact it has less. Corner fall off is about average, but at similar apertures it has more fall off at the short end and less fall off at the long end than the Sigma. Fall off really isn't much of an issue for either lens by f/8 where it would typically be used for landscapes.
This is what the photozone review you linked above says about distortion on the Canon 10-22:
The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM exhibited a quite impressive performance here and that's not only for an ultra-wide zoom but also in absolute terms - at 10mm there're slight barrel distortions which even out at about 14mm. At 22mm there're marginal pincushion distortions.
This is what the photozone that you linked above says about distortion on the Sigma 10-20:
At 10mm most of the image field is almost free of distortions so the measured distortions figures look fairly fine here (taken a little inward from the borders). However, this is only part of the truth. If you check the 10mm distortion chart below you will notice that the outer image portion is actually heavily (barrel-)distorted - probably in the 2-3% range.
At 14mm the lens shows a rather strong degree of pincushion distortions, less so at 20mm.
Now tell me how that indicates that the Canon has more distortion? If you look more objectively you will see that the Canon has mild to moderate distortion which is excellent for an ultrawide. Its distortion properties are much better for example than either the 17-40 f/4L or 16-35 f/2.8L on full frame. The Sigma in contrast has very low distortion in the center and high distortion in the borders. I find this uneven distortion a real flaw in the Sigma design as it cannot be easily corrected. Others, however, might like this distortion pattern.
It can't no you're right. But generally the thing you are taking a picture of will appear in the middle 2/3 of the frame. This is where the Sigma excels and is why I recommend it.
The 16-35 Mk II is a stunning lens and from the pictures I have seen is better than any digital competition.
Fred Lindsey wrote:
It can't no you're right. But generally the thing you are taking a picture of will appear in the middle 2/3 of the frame. This is where the Sigma excels and is why I recommend it.
And this is why I don't like the properties of the Sigma. When I am shooting wide I care about the stuff towards the edges--that is why I am using such a wide angle. If I didn't care about the stuff on the edges then I would simply shoot at a longer focal length and in effect crop out the edges. So I do care about the edges when I shoot. Look at the three pictures I posted earlier in this thread. In the first one I purposely put the sun on the one extreme edge. On the second one, the bridge goes almost across the whole frame. In the third, one I care about the rocks in the foreground on the left edge. In any of the pictures the distortion typically seen in the Sigma would have been a problem and would have needed to be corrected in my view. This would have been difficult because of the uneven pattern that it produces. So for me and the way I shoot I don't think the Sigma would be a very good solution, but everyone has to find what would works for them.
The sigma has a pretty good distortion character though. It is roughly 0-1% at 10mm. Mine has pretty much no bendy lines at all
The poster could be speaking of a couple of different types of distortion.
Barrel and pincushion distortion will vary depending on the design and construction of the lens. I suspect that this is the type of distortion you refer to when you write that yours is "roughly 0-1% at 10mm."
ALL ultra wide angle lenses will produce image "distortion" if the horizon is not centered and level in the frame - the inward/outward tilting walls, etc. that we often see in shots made with such lenses. This isn't a "flaw" in the lens - it is a feature! :-)
Fred Lindsey wrote:
By the way, that isn't distortion.
That is perspective. If I had taken that at 0 degrees horizontally you would see no angled lines apart from where the building naturally curves
Hello again mate,
The buildings on either side of your photo seem to lean towards the center. I think people call that converging verticals. It's considered as a distortion of perspective and there are tons of simple online tutorials on how to fix it.
