Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASP HSM II

[hippoeater]

I didn't see any topics on this yet. Any users here any experience with it? Seems like a well priced high quality landscape zoom lens.

Reviews seem pretty positive so far.

Would love to hear some impressions or feedback!

 

[AdamJ]

Great lens for landscapes, incredibly wide on FF. My copy is sharper at all comparable focal lengths and apertures than my 17-40mm. It's quite soft in the corners but hey, this is 12mm - nothing else even goes that wide. Downsides are no provision for front filters and the AF isn't so good in low light. I should also say that mine is currently with Sigma after suffering an electrical failure so probably best to buy it from an authorised dealer with cast iron warranty.

 

[mirekti]

Is there anybody else owning this lens perhaps? Can someone share his experience?
It looks quite interesting to me, just a bit worried about the quality.

I think this will be my choice until Canon comes up with a 14-24mm.
12mm must be crazy wide on FF.

 

[risc32]

from what i've read, it suffers alot from field curvature. that is, the plane of focus isn't flat. You might be like me and think, well how far out of focus can things get at 12mm f4.5 anyway? from what i've read, quite a bit. BUT, it goes to 12mm!!!!! that's got to be worth quite a bit. The guy over at the excellent "juzaphoto" uses one on his 7d, and loves it. He really gets very good results.

 

[mirekti]

Thanks for the info.,
The thing is he compared v1 of Sigma where v2 has some improvement and I'd like to hear some opinion and samples from guys using it. This is a good review I found though http://www.lenstip.com/326.3-Lens_review-Sigma_12-24_mm_f_4.5-5.6_II_DG_HSM_Build_quality.html , but...

 

[RLPhoto]

Looks great, I just wish it was a 2.8.

 

[robbymack]

Certainly for canon mount full frame users it's about the only game. Personally I rarely shoot wide, so I'm considering the samyang 14 2.8 as a sort of fun lens for the every once in a great while I want to go super wide.

 

[Wiki Tango]

could somebody tell the differences to or a comparison with the EF 8-15mm f/4L fisheye?

I got a sample lens of that thing on my 7D at photokina and it's amazingly wide on APS-C:

Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM by Ingo Kwiat, on Flickr

 

[pierceography]

I JUST replied in a thread where I brought up this lens and was asked about its quality. Here's my response:

I was very impressed with the build quality of the Sigma. It's the first Sigma I'd ever purchased, and I have to say if the rest of their higher end lenses share similar builds, I'd definitely purchase another. Focus/zoom rings are smooth, but not loose. The lens is very sturdy, and zooming is handled semi-internally -- the front element moves slightly, but does not lengthen the lens as it is a unified body. Overall, I'd say it's pretty darn close to L build quality... as close as I've seen from a third party, anyway.

Image quality is decent. It's sharp in the center, but a bit softer on the edges. This doesn't bother me a ton though, as edge softness is expected once you get into the Ultra-Wide realm, and this is mostly minimized once you stop down to f/8+. Lines remain very straight, with obvious distortion at the edges -- but again, this is typical of any UW. There's only very slight pincushioning at the center, but I've never felt it noticeable enough (if at all) to bother correcting. Chromatic aberration is the only thing that gives me pause when pulling this lens out of my bag. It's more than I'm used to out of my Canon lenses, but this very well could be due to the lack of in-camera lens correction for a non-Canon lens.

As for a filter thread, it kind of has one. The lens has a built in hood, with an attachment that covers the hood providing filter threads. However, I noticed some very slight, but tight vignetting even when attached to my 7D, so I haven't even bothered using it while on my 5Dm3. Also, using a polarizing filter on an UW can get you mixed results...

I'm also including one of my favorite shots with this lens. Looking up at the Manhattan facing tower of the Brooklyn Bridge last year. It's a three exposure HDR shot for contrast reasons, but even f/4.5 (wide open) it's still reasonably sharp on the edges. Oh, and this was on my 7D, so you can only imagine how wide it would be on a FF.

 

[mirekti]

This looks nice, but I'm afraid what would the sharpness be when on FF.
I guess not so good as when on 7D.

This is another interesting review I found http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2011/08/sigma-12-24mm-ii-lens-review/

Some problems with the distorsion, but if Lightroom lens correction did it's job well I woudn't mind.

 

[pierceography]

This looks nice, but I'm afraid what would the sharpness be when on FF.
I guess not so good as when on 7D.

This is another interesting review I found http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2011/08/sigma-12-24mm-ii-lens-review/

Some problems with the distorsion, but if Lightroom lens correction did it's job well I woudn't mind.

I read that review before I purchased the 12-24mm mk2, and while it concerned me, I still decided to pull the trigger. I can honestly say that I have NEVER seen that much barrel distortion. And it's certainly soft on the sides, but it's easily fixed by stopping down.

I rarely use this lens off a tripod, but when I do I ensure I can handhold at f/8 or smaller. Otherwise, you get smeary edges. But when used with these limitations in mind, it's a fantastic lens!

The fact of the matter is that not even canon can engineer a lens to overcome the shortcomings of an ultra wide. So if you're holding out for a canon zoom wider than 16mm, you'll likely be disappointed.

 

[mirekti]

...ah, don't know what to say. I might end up buying Nikkor and a Canon mount.

I'm just worried about manual focus, not sure I'll be able to hit it right. On the other hand this shouldn't be so hard at these focal lenghts.

 

[akclimber]

I own both the MK I & MK II version of the Sigma. I've used the MK I version on a 5Dc and 5D2 and the MK II version on my 5D2 and 5D3. In the same focal lengths, I also use a 24 TSE MK II, Zeiss 21 f/2.8 and 24-105 on the Canons. I really enjoy using the Sigma for its really wide, funky perspective. Funny, but like Pierce, I tend to use it for HDRs of structures (everything from abandoned buildings to icebergs and icefalls) and interiors. The MK II version has more distortion than the MK I version but has much better corners. Its center is very acceptable. I also tend to like Sigma colors and contrast. Since I own other 20-24mm lenses that have better IQ at those focal lengths (the 24 TSE MK II and Zeiss), the Sigma is my "wildly wide" lens and I don't really think of it as a landscape lens. I know it's a matter of taste but I'm not a fan of a lens wider than 20mm for landscapes (things start getting awful tiny and wide at those really wide focal lengths and to keep detail I'd rather start stitching with longer focal lengths for landscapes). So, I guess for me, the Sigma is a specialty lens. Have you considered the new Tamron 16-24 f/2.8?

Cheers!

 

[mirekti]

Have you considered the new Tamron 16-24 f/2.8?

I belive you thougt of Tokina 16-28. I'm just checking some reviews on youtube.
Looks nice, but 16mm... I wish it was 14mm.

If lightroom's lens correction is able to fix Sigma's distortion it would be my first pick.

 

[akclimber]

Have you considered the new Tamron 16-24 f/2.8?

I belive you thougt of Tokina 16-28. I'm just checking some reviews on youtube.
Looks nice, but 16mm... I wish it was 14mm.

If lightroom's lens correction is able to fix Sigma's distortion it would be my first pick.

The Sigma's distortion is nothing to worry too much about. For really wide on a Canon FF, the Sigma is the way to go if you want a zoom and/or wider than 14mm (unless you want to use the Nikon 14-24 with an adapter - a terrific lens that I've rented and used on my 5D2).

Cheers!

 

[pierceography]

Ok, seriously... if you're referring to the distortion mentioned in (http://www.arthurdomagala.com/blog/2011/08/sigma-12-24mm-ii-lens-review/) I would NOT WORRY ABOUT IT. I've NEVER seen anything close to the distortion documented in that review. I primarily use this lens for architecture -- like akclimber, abandoned buildings, bridges, city lines, etc -- and the lines stay almost perfectly straight. There is definitely distortion (elongated lines) on the edges, but the that is typical of ANY UW (even the mighty nikkor). It would be like complaining that a fisheye doesn't keep straight lines -- Pure baloney!

I'm also with akclimber on this, I typically don't use it for landscape as I don't like how the focal point seems too distant and the overall composure looks like a mess. Again, you'll get this with any UW as it's a composition thing.

Do I wish it was a f/2.8? Nope. Why? Because aside from the extra 1.5 stops gained, I would never utilize that kind of DoF. DoF is almost meaningless with an ultra wide. And knowing that the lens is much sharper once you get to f/8, I never use f/4.5... so why would I use f/2.8?

I also like this lens because it fits very nicely in my lineup. 12-24mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm. Though again, like akclimber, I almost always utilize this lens between 12mm and 16mm. Any longer, and I'll just pop on my 24 since it's a 2.8 and my "go to" lens.

While I don't use the 12-24mm Sigma a lot, I always have it in my bag since there are plenty of occasions where I want to go REAL wide in a confined space. I do a lot of urban exploring, so it spends 90% of its time on a tripod stopped down to or past f/8. And given the nature of urban exploring (abandoned buildings, confined spaces, avoiding Detroit muggers) this lens fits that need perfectly.

 

[akclimber]

Have you considered the new Tamron 16-24 f/2.8?

I meant to reference the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. My bad. :

 

[mirekti]

I bought it and already have it in my signature
It'll arive on Thursday.
I'll keep in mind to have it at f8-f16 and see how it will perform.

 

[joshmurrah]

Interesting thread, the 12-24 II is on my wishlist right now. There's no Canon lens like it, it actually eats into the 8-15 fisheye territory, but being rectilinear.

The Tokina interests me, but @ about $900, it's not that far off from the $1500 canon f/2.8 updated equivelant.

 

[Portrait_Moments_Photogra]

i do have a problem with my sigma 12-24 -

i noticed it consistently back focuses on dimly lit locations like receptions and parks at night when your subject is only a few feet infront of you - like table shoots and group shoots

i use it with the canon 1dx