kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

The Sigma is great, but apparently the new Canon is also excellent. Samyang makes a 10mm f2.8, but it is expensive and seems not to be their best effort...

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

I think your missing one thing : if I buy a len's any len's your saying I'm not
getting what I think I'm getting , if I get a 50mm or 65 mm I expect it to be
what it says it is . a 50 mm when I look through the view finder your saying
it's not a 50 mm and all this crap because of the magnifying effect of the camera . so on a lot of these cameras what you see through the view finder
is what you get on film . in other words your saying all cameras have this flaw
so the len's makers are making there len's with a little more mm or a little less mm so in the end it comes out to match the 50mm that I payed for ? Come on !! , I don't think so .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Actually, that is a whole other set of issues. Manufacturer's can "fudge" a focal length a bit. For instance, a 150-500 Sigma zoom is probably a bit short on the 500, actually measuring 450-475 at infinity. But then unless it is a parfocal lens, everything will change as you come to the closest distance.

A parfocus lens will change it's physical length, but retain the focal length. Most current lenses use an internal focus design that moves elements within the lens to get closer. The downside is that the focal length often gets shorter.

The highly rated Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR II is a good example of this. When zoomed to 200mm, at the closest distance, it only measures 134mm. At the farthest distance, it measures 192mm.

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-70-200-VR-II-lens.htm

So, the answer to the question you didn't ask - you definitely don't get what you think you are paying for - a 70-200 at infinity is really 70-192 at infinity, and 72 to 134 at close focus. Sorry to break it to you, dude, but that is the way it is.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I agree with the Tokina 11-16. Just make sure it is the newer model with the internal focus motor for your 3100.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

No, you're not understanding my point. "Normal" does not mean that the image size seen through the viewfinder should match that of what you see with the other eye. It means that the focal length matches the diagonal measurement of the film or sensor:

".A lens whose focal length is equal to the camera sensor's diagonal will have a 53 degree angle of view across the diagonal, regardless of sensor size. This universality is partly why the "diagonal of format vs. focal length" metric is so useful. For a 3:2 sensor, this corresponds to a 45x31 degree (horizontal x vertical) angle of view in landscape orientation."

Now think of TV sets: a 42" set will have a much bigger picture than a 21" set, even though the picture is exactly the same.

It's the same with cameras: depending on the optics of the viewfinder, or the optics and screen size of an EVF, the size of the picture you see with your eye will vary from camera to camera. Therefore it is useless trying to judge what focal length is normal by the size compared with the two eyes--one looking directly and the other through the viewfinder.

Here is an interesting discussion from which that quote is taken:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread106.htm

And further:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

bv52gyf Loc: Kincardine, Scotland

Many thanks for all of your input,

I will test out the sigma 10-20, the nikon 14-24 and the Tokina 11-16.

As usual, you guys have been great.

Andy

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Nice images Andy. Are you not satisfied with the results of what you have? If not, the Sigma 8-16 is an extraordinary lens.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The Nikon is a spoiler - once you try it, nothing else will do :)

I have an extra one that will be going in for its annual CLA (clean, lube, adjust) soon - depending on your timing - you might want to consider it - I'll get back to you once I I take it to Nikon Melville and get a cost. It will be less than you could get it on eBay, Craigslist or by any other means -

bv52gyf Loc: Kincardine, Scotland

Cheers Gene51, I'd be interested in that.

I am in the uk and would need to factor in shipping costs but i'm still interested.

Andy

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

Andy,
If you find a Nikon 14-24 for 400 pounds, please, please let me know!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The last one I saw that was under $1100 was broken - stuck at 14mm - so I don't think you will get one for 400£ - at least not a workign one. :)

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

check this site out on sigma written by the garu of nikon . he's a long working
photographer that test and uses nikon . but when he tested the sigma here two years ago . he replaced his nikon with the sigma . in his bag , that's all it took for me to buy the sigma as I jaws looking for a wide then . check out --

www.Bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

At the time the 10-20 Sigma was popular, the only Nikon offfering for DX was the 12-24, and it was really nothing special. The Sigma blew it away, but it was an iffy proposition at best. Luckily I live only 75 mins from Ronkonkoma. I bought my 10-20 in 2008 from BandH, but I, like many others who bought that lens, was a victim of a great lens on paper that was poorly assembled. Element centering was a continuing challenge for Sigma, and the return rate on this model was fairly high.

Symptoms included smearing of detail (coma), extreme purple fringing (alignment), uneven focus - upper left was sharp, lower right was awful - etc etc. It took three trips to Sigma to get it right. What I ended up with was the envy of all of my Nikon shooting friends who swore they would only buy Nikon goods - a few of whom had the 12-24. Severe GAS ensued, and at least 3 of them ended up with the 10-20. I gave mine up when I upgraded to FX, and I got my 14-24, then my second 14-24.

There is just no comparing the 14-24 to any of the DX offerings. Not even close.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

While that is somewhat true in terms of ultimate resolution, the Sigma 8-16 is excellent, and even blows the 14-24 away in flare resistance. I have both and still carry the 8-16 both for the extra AOV and for shooting against the light.