Hello There, A few weeks ago I bought the Walimex 8mm fisheye for my Canon EOS 600D, taking pictures with the lens gives me a lot of fun, I have since a lot of pictures shot with the Fisheye and developed a real passion for shooting with the Fisheye. The only drawback: the Walimex has no autofocus, what I knew of course the purchase. For landscapes, this of course does not matter - manual focus to infinity and the sharpness fits. It becomes more difficult because when spontaneous portraits in which one wants to use the fisheye effect, especially in our pets. Of 10 tests every 10 shots were blurred or sharpness sat in the wrong place. The question was therefore whether I want to pay more than twice as high price for the Sigma 10mm Fisheye and it has an autofocus. I have long quarreled with me and spent some time with the research on the Internet, as in the November issue of a known photo magazine finally a test of sigma Fisheyes was contained and the part has there outperformed the Walimex, finally, curiosity won and I ordered the Sigma. After the first test shots - Portraits of my girlfriend and our pet - I was immediately impressed by the Sigma. The autofocus enabled shots that just were not possible with the Walimex so. Shortly I thought already to auction the Walimex immediately decided but then to make my own test, as I have already done this with several other lenses in a direct comparison. So I took my time and chose two designs: a series of photographs at close of my DVD shelf (ie logically in an enclosed space), another from our balcony overlooking the countryside, but also with a few houses and a church steeple. With two lenses I made test shots with absolutely identical image section (tripod was used) and under the same lighting conditions, each with multiple aperture settings (3.5, 5.6, 8, 11, 16 and 22), all recordings with RAW. When DVD shelf I had with the Walimex course only manual focus (via Live View and 10x magnification - this is of course uncomfortable), in the Exterior I put the focus simply on infinitely. In Sigma respectively the autofocus was used. First, we can say: While both lenses have the manufacturer the same picture angle (167 ° in both Walimex as well as Sigma (the latter only for Canon)), however, the focal length written by Walimex is not a marketing ploy, with the 8mm you will definitely get a bit more on image than with the Sigma (10mm). All RAW images I created with Lightroom with the same settings. The various apertures I had only adjust the brightness in some recordings manually to obtain the same brightness in all recordings. The result has puzzled me: in the center are both objectives in terms of sharpness and image quality quite close together (although even here in my estimation the Walimex is minimal sharper), in the corners of the Walimex but is considerably sharper. I am not exaggerating, the difference is enormous at 100% view, although I could hardly believe it and initially wanted. Only when it comes to chromatic aberration, the Sigma is one step ahead. This play for me but not matter, because the latter can be removed relatively well with Lightroom. But sharper on all test shots and at all apertures clearly the Walimex - with less than half the price! I'm going to sleep one or two nights about it, but tend to return the Sigma. Of course, the auto focus enables shooting, so I could not do with the Walimex. In landscape or architectural photography but it's easy for me to picture quality, particularly of course to the sharpness. And here the Sigma Fisheye clearly lose (at least the copy that I have received, eventually, I had bad luck and got a Monday lens received).
