FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

A-Mount Ultrawides

Page  12>
Author
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14113
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A-Mount Ultrawides
    Posted: 09 February 2019 at 17:41
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

You can find them onOptical Limits . But here you go:

Sony/Minolta./Tamron 11-18
11mm: - 2.69%
14mm: - 1.63% (1.66% Sony)
18mm: - 0.883% (0.924% Sony)

I am surprised by the difference between the Tamron (on Canon) and the Sony. Probably sample variations?

Maybe that is why Sony never added in-body Lens Compensations for the 11-18. I have seen premade lens profiles make images worse.

I see no logical reason for Sony leaving out correction for the 11-18mm, and no geometric correction tools I've used have made images worse.

I have PTLens, which allows me to look at and compare the geometric correction characteristics of hundreds of lenses.

The program lists two Sigma 10-20mm lenses (as does the dyxum lens database): an f/4-5.6 EX DC and a newer f/3.5 EX DC HSM.

All three need considerable correction that varies at different focal lengths. The Tamron/KM/Sony and the newer Sigma need only slight correction at 18mm, but a lot at 11mm. The older Sigma is the opposite. In no case is FOV significantly impacted.

Here are the results when the PTLens corrections are applied to a uniform grid. Where the grid shows pincushion distortion, it means the lens has barrel distortion... and vice-versa. I designated the A77 as the camera, though it should be the same with any supported APS-C camera.



PTLens doesn't do automatic CA correction, so that can't be compared.
 



Back to Top
Dena View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 November 2015
Country: United States
Location: Arkansas
Status: Offline
Posts: 431
Post Options Post Options   Quote Dena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 16:11
I have the Tokina. A little soft in the corners, but I like it.
Back to Top
dxqcanada View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 16 March 2008
Country: Canada
Location: Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Post Options Post Options   Quote dxqcanada Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 16:04
I had the Tamron ... found it was too soft, never could get sharp images. I got the Tokina and it was much better, even wide open.
Sony A77mII, A57, Nex-6 | Minolta Maxxum 9000, Autocord | Canon P
.
http://oldcam.wordpress.com
Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 390
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 15:38
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

You can find them onOptical Limits . But here you go:

Sony/Minolta./Tamron 11-18
11mm: - 2.69%
14mm: - 1.63% (1.66% Sony)
18mm: - 0.883% (0.924% Sony)

I am surprised by the difference between the Tamron (on Canon) and the Sony. Probably sample variations?

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
10mm: - 1.35%
14mm: - 1.09%
20mm: - 0.631%

Be aware they tested one lens and looking at the Sony/Tamron 11-18 this is only indicative I guess.


Thanks for the link and the data.
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2336
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 13:27
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

You can find them onOptical Limits . But here you go:

Sony/Minolta./Tamron 11-18
11mm: - 2.69%
14mm: - 1.63% (1.66% Sony)
18mm: - 0.883% (0.924% Sony)

I am surprised by the difference between the Tamron (on Canon) and the Sony. Probably sample variations?

Maybe that is why Sony never added in-body Lens Compensations for the 11-18. I have seen premade lens profiles make images worse.

Tolerance requirements seem to scale with focal length. Ultra wides tends to be expensive and still highly variable.

The tiny 3.8-5.9 F3.7-4 wide zoom for my Pentax Q is rather expensive while the 15-45 F2.8 "telephoto" zoom is quite affordable.

The FE ultra wides are probably much easier to make.

At least these old APS-C ultra wide zooms are rather affordable used.

Edited by QuietOC - 09 February 2019 at 13:47
Sony A68 A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9235
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 12:48
Optical Limits did not test the Samyang 12mm, but Lenstip did and they found it was at - 1.88%. But I do not think you can compare this figure with the ones from Optical Limits.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
 



Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9235
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 12:37
You can find them onOptical Limits . But here you go:

Sony/Minolta./Tamron 11-18
11mm: - 2.69%
14mm: - 1.63% (1.66% Sony)
18mm: - 0.883% (0.924% Sony)

I am surprised by the difference between the Tamron (on Canon) and the Sony. Probably sample variations?

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
10mm: - 1.35%
14mm: - 1.09%
20mm: - 0.631%

Be aware they tested one lens and looking at the Sony/Tamron 11-18 this is only indicative I guess.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2336
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 12:27
I also had the older Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6. It was pretty decent around 12 mm. That was where it had the least distortion. I used the Capture One profile for it. The image quality from 16-20 mm wasn't as good as normal zooms. The corners got worse wider than 12 mm.

The Samyang 12 F2 manual prime is a very good reason to buy an APS-C mirrorless camera. I haven't found anything to replace it with.
Sony A68 A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 390
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 11:47
I have the cheaper Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 which does a good job on those wide architectural shots. If the f3.5 is better (as is reported) than it would be a pretty fine lens.

@addy - do you have distortion figures for the cheaper Sigma and/or the Sony/Minolta 11-18mm?
Back to Top
SnowFella View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 21 April 2013
Country: Australia
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Posts: 2174
Post Options Post Options   Quote SnowFella Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 10:29
No love for the Sony DT 11-18mm?
Mine seem to be doing alright in most situations other than most of the time feeling way too wide on the 11mm end. Guess that might be coming from using an old Tokina 19-35mm lens as my main wide option for years.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 9235
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 10:18
For me, it would be the 10-24 because of the 24mm long end. I use UW as a walk around lens and 24mm is better then 20mm let alone 16mm.

Looking at your intended use, I think you want a lens that doesn't have too much distortion. So, I went to Optical limits:
Sigma 10-20/3.5
10mm: - 2.75%
15mm: - 0.164%
20mm:   0.511%

Tokina 11-16/2.8
11mm: - 2.12%
13mm: - 1.39%
16mm: - 0.612%

Tamron 10-24/3.5-4.5
10mm: - 2%
14mm: - 1.9%
18mm: - 1.6%
24mm: - 1.6%

It seems the Sigma is the best one off the 10mm mark. Some people say you can correct distortion in post, but there is no free lunch.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
2manycamera View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 14 November 2005
Location: Cal Motherlode
Status: Offline
Posts: 1506
Post Options Post Options   Quote 2manycamera Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 02:17
I use the Tokina 11-16/2.8 on the a77. In most regards, I will say it should do a fine job, with the possible exception of building exteriors. It is not a "perfect" rectilinear lens, so I would say to keep straight lines away from the image edges. The curvature is not terrible, just not good enough to charge customers with the results if that is a need for you. I started to use this lens for interiors for realtor house listings, and was never really satisfied. Today I use the a7 with the Voightlander 15/4.5, which is outstanding.

I know of no comparable ultra-wide prime available in APS-C or FF A mount. So one of these zooms may be your only choice, if there is a better option, I'm not aware of what that would be.
7D a77 a850 a6300 a7 24/2.8 28/2 35/2 50/1.4 100/2 200/2.8 24-70CZ 80-200/2.8 24-105 28-135 300/4 16-50DT 70-300G Tam 90/2.8 Tokina 11-16 E16/2.8 E50/1.8 E18-55 E55-210 FE 28-70 Sig E30/1.4 FE15/4.5V
Back to Top
coyote1086 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2007
Country: Canada
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Posts: 2166
Post Options Post Options   Quote coyote1086 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2019 at 00:26
If you want to go even wider, there is a Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6

My copy seems de-centered as the right side of the image is blurry compare to the left side below 10mm.

If getting these wide angles lenses, ensure to check the image quality on both sides very carefully.
Back to Top
Atom Ant Oz View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2016
Country: Australia
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Posts: 182
Post Options Post Options   Quote Atom Ant Oz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 February 2019 at 22:55
I have the Sigma and it works well on the A77ii. This thread has prompted me to see how it works on my A99ii - reviews suggest that it can be used on FF at the longer end and my widest FF zooms start at 24mm.

There is also a cheaper Sigma 10-20/4~5.6 which I haven't tried.
A99ii + 10-20 | 24-70Z | 24-105D | 70-200G | 100-300 APO D | 70-400G
20/2.8 | 28/2.8 | 35/1.8 | 50/1.4 | 135/1.8Z | 300/4 | 500/8
A6500 + 10-18 | 16-70Z | 18-135 | 70-200/4G
28/2 | 50/1.8F | 85/1.8
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.