Seriously you have no idea about wide angle. Why the f--- the distortion is good ? To make a person look fat ? To make the building look like leaning tower of pisa ? Please, please research before post
Fish eye and ultra wide angle is 2 different thing la. omfgbbqsauce

This post has been edited by KTCY: Sep 23 2008, 11:51 PM

Huh? Manual metering? And why would a film SLR suit me more?

My photos aren't world class, but I'd like to think they're passable la. They're on flickr mostly. Feel free to look around.

If I spit out bull-shit, it's definitely not intentional. I'll be the first one to say I tend to make mistakes. What I don't do is hide behind them. If I made mistakes, I'll be more than happy to be corrected.

Master? Far from it. But I know where my ISO button is la.

As you like. Just a piece of advise. Continue with your posting. I, too lazy and fell bored of your post. Gonna put tl, lr already

he he the salesman & salesgirl looked blur when i'm asking for D90 ... huh maybe they know nothing about that .. yeah so funny
keep smiling ... that why they quote me so highsky price ha ha ha

working at langkawi la .... plan to shift to mainland but dont know when it will happen .... keep filling the form every year until them approve

The distortion exaggerates perspective and can work wonders with lines. They're also good for in-your-face kind of photos. Shooting with the 10-20 is tricky and needs practice but definitely do-able.

Do you own a 10-20? I reckon 'no' because from what you're saying, you don't know how to shoot with a 10-20.

And the Tokina 11-16 distortion free? Come on. I know folks using that lens and abuse it for portraits. People look fat and like aliens (elongated head).

If you've stressed the tokina is a constant f2.8 then I agree it's an advantage over the 10-20.

Btw, what happened to your other partner? After the fiasco with stopped-down metering, he just kept quiet?

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 12:02 AM

Bullocks.
Sigma 10-14mm is not usable at all for serious photography as the distortion is farking bad. While Tokina even at 11mm, it's freaking sharp when you step down to f/5.6.

I got 10-20, tokina 11-16 and also nikkor 10.5mm in hand. Farking play with it and 10-20 is farking soft. Tokina is way sharper. Even tested same condition, same lighting same environtment, same camera. Nikkor fish eyes is the sharpest but it can't consider as UWA. Tokina came 2nd while Sigma really

I don't know how to shoot ? Then you think you're master of everything ? Funny. Seriously, control your way of posting. You pissed of lot of people already.

This post has been edited by KTCY: Sep 24 2008, 12:07 AM

I thought we were talking about the distortion? Yes, I agree the Sigma is soft compared to the other UWA, but I never claimed it was the sharpest. I only said the distortion effect is useful for a distorted perspective.

Don't push you lack of self-confidence on me. I never claimed you can't shoot. You did in the previous post. I've never seen your work. (Oops, looks like I did claim you can't shoot. Well if you claim the 10-20 can't be used as a serious lens, then I guess I'd have to say you don't know how to shoot with the lens).

And the same thing goes with claiming I'm the 'master'. I have never, and will never, claim to be master of anything. I'm not as arrogant as some of the trolls in this forums.

If you find my posting style offensive, feel free to ignore them. Why read them? You don't have any right over how I post and vice-versa. If I have to put up with childish posts, I guess you'd have to as well

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 12:30 AM

Ermm while you two continue with your argument, can I just interrupt for a moment?

Did you say YL is essentially selling the D90 kit for RM3650? That is possibly the cheapest price possible for the D90. Unless you meant its RM2950 for the body and additional RM1k for the lens. That would put it to market price.

You like to win huh ? Go ahead. You win with metering is easy
Distortion of sigma causes it to be soft la and the distortion is farking useless. It's good sometime, but most of the time it turn out badly. 10mm is very wide but the quality of the photos thanks to the bad distortion control causes it to be useless.
Lots of wedding photographer throw out this lens and opt for 11-16 because of the well distortion control and also f/2.8.

Anyway, you have a 10-20 eh ? Come post some good photos of it.
Oh ya. Maybe some manual metering with sigma ?

---

Added on September 24, 2008, 12:35 amWhen get your D90
Can't wait for your macro video

This post has been edited by KTCY: Sep 24 2008, 12:35 AM

Yes, I have the 10-20. http://www.flickr.com/photos/eng-bernie/se...57607356533273/
The link is for all the newest photos with the 10-20. Please, take a look at the badly distored pics. I take portraits with that lens too btw. So how's that for distortion?

zio, sorry for hogging the thread

Yes, YL offered 2650 for body only. It was initially offered at 2850. Additional 1K for the lens. They posted it at MIR. I didn't call to confirm though (there was a phone number there) because I didn't intend to buy one.

And forget reply your regarding my lack of confidence.
You must be joking about my lack of confidence. You don't know me and trust every single little word I post up here saying I don't post here because I'm bad in shooting ? Then you come saying I lack of confidence ? Funny, indeed very funny.

I see till want vomit already 10-20 photos. It doesn't let me have the umphhhhhhhhh to get the lens because it's not a good lens compare to 11-16 or even Nikkor 14-24

I see no point replying this as I leave it to others to comment about Sigma

Ahh ok. There are a number of fake MIR postings with YL's number. Started a few days back actually. Oh well, glimmer of hope that it will still be cheaper

And go back to shooting you two. Err not each other, photos

I go other place. Lazy reply his forever-correct-message-

And why exactly are you basing the lens performance on my pictures? I'm just showing I do own the lens and to demonstrate the distortion effects. My pics might not do justice to the lens.

Calling the 14-24 an UWA? This is a D40 thread.

bai bai (not that I expect you to keep your word)

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 12:57 AM

i'm cool! well anyway, how much is the sigma?

Which Sigma? 50mm? Or 10-20mm?

10-20 i dunno, i just like the weird distortion thing. haha!

Last time I checked, it was around 2k for a local warranty set. But seriously, for 2k, maybe the tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a better buy. Grey sets are 1680 if my memory serves. The 11-16 still has distortion (despite what was said earlier) but has the added advantage of f2.8 and a tad sharper. However, you lose the 20mm-ish range, which is what I generally use to take portraits in wide angle. At 16mm, there's still slight distortions so if you take portraits with the tokina, make sure you center the subject.

So I guess it breaks down to:
1. Do you need f2.8? The large aperture is useful if you plan on using it as a walk-around lens + landscape. Remember though that f4-f5.6 looks bad on paper but since we are talking about wide angles, you'll get by with very slow shutters to compensate the lack of light.

2. Is sharpness very important? Blow up sample pics of the 11-16 and 10-20 and judge if you can live with either lens. I find that the 10-20 is OK enough for me.

3. Do you need the extra 1mm? When I go wide, I want wiiiiiide, hence the Sigma

4. Do you want HSM? The Sigma has a silent-wave motor and will focus faster, quieter. On a D40 too

This post has been edited by ebernie: Sep 24 2008, 01:18 AM

okay i did some googling of images from both lenses. the tokina looks very normal whereas the sigma is awesomely distorted. haha!! since i'm not a professional, so i don't have to make people look pretty in my photos.

thanks for the info, i might get this

chills out guys...