1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

If only Sigma would make a 8-16 f4-5.6 WA....

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by letsgofishing, Apr 16, 2014.

  1. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    After a LONG discussion of the merits/demerits oof the Panny 7-14 vs the Oly 9-18, life would be so much simpler (for me) if Sigma made an 8-16mm.
    They make a great 10-20 APSC (15-35 equiv) for Nikon, Canon etc. The f4-5.6 version costs $429 and the constant f3.5 $649.
    I had the f4 -5.6 version when I had my Canon 650D and it was a really great lens - AND it took filters which for me, as a seascape photographer was vital. It measures 86x89mm and weighs 520g - compared to the Panny at 70x83 and 300g.
    Sigma must have sold tons of these lenses - I've seen plenty of them around and am a bit surprised that they haven't developed a lens like this. Assuming they could produce a 8-16 constant f4 with dimensions and weight similar to the Panny for around $500, I would leap at the opportunity!
    Your thoughts?
     
  2. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    My thoughts? I'm in!
     
  3. The Canon EFS 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 is my ideal UWA zoom, which would equate to 8-18mm for the Micro 4/3 format.
     
  4. shaolinmonk

    shaolinmonk Mu-43 Veteran

    242
    Aug 31, 2013
    Toronto Canada
    please!!!!
     
  5. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    Yes please, I'd go for something like that so long as IQ was decent.
     
  6. wushumr2

    wushumr2 Mu-43 Regular

    137
    May 20, 2013
    I sold almost all my DSLR gear and all I have is some full frame lenses, but if anyone has the Nikon or Canon mount version they should slap that on a m4/3 camera and see what the results are!

    Though you'd have to buy those massive WonderPana filters or whatever they're called since the Siggy doesn't take filters.

    Honestly, I'd rather just go with a Tokina 11-16 and a SpeedBooster. THAT would probably rock.
     
  7. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    943
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
  8. wushumr2

    wushumr2 Mu-43 Regular

    137
    May 20, 2013
    Yeah definitely should, and you'd end up with a 15.5-22.4 f/2 lens. You could do the 12-24 and end up with a 17-33.5 f2.8 lens. Heavy yes, but MUCH more versatile than the 11-22 or 9-18.
     
  9. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    A nice idea, but tell me please I'm missing something : the Olympus 9-18 will do the job and is similar cash to your imaginary Sigma lens, right? Wrong?
     
  10. DoofClenas

    DoofClenas Who needs a Mirror!

    943
    Nov 9, 2012
    Traverse City, MI
    Clint
    Isn't it the other way around? 11-16 becomes approximately a 7.5-11.5 f/2 and the 12-24 becomes a 8.5-17mm f2.8?
     
  11. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    Their 50mm f1.4 Art lens is getting a lot of attention. I would like a MFT version for portraits please. Thanks.
     
  12. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    I guess we want something just a bit wider than 9. I'd refer 7mm, but I guess we'd lose the ability to use filters.
     
  13. InsanelyMarc

    InsanelyMarc Mu-43 Regular

    33
    Jan 17, 2013
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    I had that sigma too... loved it. they do need to make one for M4/3!
     
  14. Fri13

    Fri13 Mu-43 Veteran

    353
    Jan 30, 2014
    I would take the 7mm over 8mm any day but if someone would join both worlds, have a 7-12mm what has filter possibility but usable only when 8-12mm side. Just add a lens filter adapter around the lens so filter can be mounted to adapter when wanted to zoom in that little bit. If someone would whine about filter being visible at 7mm end....

    Would be better to have possibilities without requiring to buy two lenses.
     
  15. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I would consider a lens like you suggested and would welcome Sigma to the fold. So far they only have 3 m4/3 lenses and those were actually designed for the Sony NEX and adapted for m4/3. However the lens I really want to see Sigma make is a m4/3 version of the 17-70mm f2.8-4. One for m4/3 would come out to a 12.5 - 52.5mm. I know the Olympus 12-40mm is an option but it isn't cheap. I would rather loose the stop on the long end, gain 10+mm and save some money.
     
  16. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    Spot on. There's a big difference between 7 and 9mm and 8mm would be "perfect". Also, the narrower FOV of 8mm should easily allow a filter thread on the lens, seeing that the 10-20 (15mm equiv) has one.
     
  17. Reflector

    Reflector Mu-43 Veteran

    406
    Aug 31, 2013
    If I suddenly find myself obtaining a Tokina 11-16 I'll update my F Mount lenses thread to include some examples. With the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 at 18mm and stopped down a little you have something close to the far end of that with amazing low light capability.

    For anyone considering using a Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6:
    It has some (Strange looking) corner softness when it is at approx 10mm and not stopped down. Probably from how the SB has a 1.4x crop instead of a 1.5x (Nikon) or 1.6x (Canon) so it'll hit the corners. Also do not use the hood with it on the wide end, you will see the petals visibly.

    Supposedly the 10-20 f/3.5 is a little softer even when stopped down.
     
  18. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    834
    Sep 30, 2013
    Sigma does make a 8-16mm DSLR lens, its huge and expensive though. Speed-boosted that would give you a ~ 5.75-11.5mm (11.5-23mm equiv).