[davidmanze]

I came across the review yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLizgzitfR4

Christopher Frost reviews it ...... small, filter thread,  soft corners on FF ...... loads of vignetting ..............

[wim]

There's voigtlander 10 MM f5. 6 even wider and already available in Sony mount
Aside interior and real estate photography I don't see where I would use such lenses, I don't remember the last time I needed anything wider than 16mm full frame

I've used the Samyamg for event photography, to get an overview of an entire hall / conference room, or a special shot from the speakers rostrum and such. Even 10 mm on FF is sometimes not enough. Of course there also is the possibility to get different perspectives with such an extreme UWA lens, which you could not get otherwise .

Kind regards, Wim

I get your point, maybe I am biased because when I need extremely wide I don't hesitate to use a fisheye, and checking some old pictures (before COVID-19) an ultrawide is very interesting for the dance floor in weddings, although 16mm is wide enough for me

I've dabbled with defishing fisheye photographs, but I never found the results very pleasing beyond the center of the image, hence I prefer a proper rectilinear extreme UWA, provided it is a good one. I never liked the Sigma 12-24 with all the smearinng in the corners and edges, even the Canon 11-24 is not optimal, but I do like the Samyang 10 mm, at F/8 that is .

Kind regards, Wim

---

I came across the review yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLizgzitfR4

Christopher Frost reviews it ...... small, filter thread,  soft corners on FF ...... loads of vignetting ..............

Yes, saw that too, not all that impressive .

Kind regards, Wim

[toni-a]

Defishing a fisheye ???    why would anyone do that ?? 
When you use  a fisheye it's mainy for the fisheye effect otherwise why get a fisheye at the first place  ???
You don't want a fisheye effect, use a rectilinear lens straight from the beginning, it's obvious without any need for tests  that the result from a defished fisheye will be very poor especially at the borders.

[Rover]

Wim, isn't it funny that for the longest time, 12mm of the Sigma 12-24 (or the Voigtländer prime) was the absolute widest one could get without defishing, and then all of a sudden there's a wealth of options all the way down to 9mm.

By the way, Lenstip has reviewed the 9mm recently. Totally not perfect (CA, huge distortion, astigmatism, flare, strong vignetting...) but since it's the only game in town for 9mm, it's acceptable, especially given that they found it to be pretty sharp.

[wim]

Wim, isn't it funny that for the longest time, 12mm of the Sigma 12-24 (or the Voigtländer prime) was the absolute widest one could get without defishing, and then all of a sudden there's a wealth of options all the way down to 9mm.

By the way, Lenstip has reviewed the 9mm recently. Totally not perfect (CA, huge distortion, astigmatism, flare, strong vignetting...) but since it's the only game in town for 9mm, it's acceptable, especially given that they found it to be pretty sharp.

Well, I did my research before jumping to the Samyang 10 mm .

Basically, most 9 to 13 mm lenses are not all that great beyond the centre, and often have lots of CA, astigmatism, flaring and indeed vignetting. There are a few that do better in one or two of the areas, the Canon 11-24 being one of them (at 11 mm I mean), but overall I think it loses too much sharpness beyond the centre of the image.

The Voightlander 12 mm and 10 mm aren't too bad either, but they are not as sharp or as well corrected as the Samyang 10 mm, and they start at F/5.6, which means you really need to stop down to F/11 to get optimal results, as is proven by the reviews I have seen.

With all of these lenses you need to stop down the aperture at least two stops anyway to get a properly sharp image including the corners, and where the Samyang stands out is that it actually is the sharpest in the corners at F/8, has very little CA, barely any coma, and distortion is quite a low, simple barrel distortion at a rather low level compared to any other lens in this class (and because it is simple barrel distortion, easy to correct).

All in all, highly recommendable AFAIAC .

Oh, even on my Olympuses with the 0.71x and 0.64x speedboosters it still is an extreme WA lens . With the 0.64x one it actually becomes wider than any native lens available for MFT, 6.4 mm F/2.24 - not too shabby IOW .

Kind regards, Wim

P.S.: Several months after my research, Christopher Frost did a review too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8rFZKkP7Cs

[Rover]

Well, the Samyang 10mm looks alright but it's a MF lens... so no-go for me.
Interestingly enough I tried the Tamron 10-24 VC in a shop and it worked all the way down to 10mm without vignetting (as long as the hood was off) on my camera, but then I saw Klaus's review and thought that maybe I shouldn't get that one. To think that I seriously considered replacing my Canon 16-35/4 with that one...