LensTip Review: Sigma A 12-24 mm f/4 DG HSM

[ahsanford]

Thar she blows:
http://www.lenstip.com/488.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_12-24_mm_f_4_DG_HSM.html

• Sharp, but not the 'Art sharp' we've come to expect -- the 11-24L outperforms it, esp. in the center of the frame
• Coma is decent -- similar to the 11-24L
• For the Sigma AF wary shopper, the autofocus did not miss (0%) in testing, but one would hope an ultrawide + slower lens should get this result. (Still, it's good to know.)

From what I've read (please correct me if I'm wrong), the new Sigma lacks the 11-24L's rear ND slot and it isn't weather sealed, but otherwise it looks a solid and affordable alternative to the 11-24L.

- A

 

[candyman]

Subject seems to be popular. The Lenstip site is not available.

 

[ahsanford]

Subject seems to be popular. The Lenstip site is not available.

Wow. I can't get it now either.

- A

 

[Ryananthony]

Subject seems to be popular. The Lenstip site is not available.

Wow. I can't get it now either.

- A

Ahsanford, you seem to the first to share reviews. I appreciate it. Thanks for letting us know when they become available....even if the lenstip site is down now. ;D

 

[ahsanford]

Subject seems to be popular. The Lenstip site is not available.

Wow. I can't get it now either.

- A

Ahsanford, you seem to the first to share reviews. I appreciate it. Thanks for letting us know when they become available....even if the lenstip site is down now. ;D

Thank Feedly. It's amazing how easy staying on top of things can be with a well set-up RSS reader.

- A

 

[9VIII]

Wow.

Very low CA
Very low Vignetting
Well controlled distortion at 12mm
Good Coma control
Excellent sharpness at 12mm

Looks just about perfect, normally I look at these lenses and think that I'd rather use a crop sensor, this one actually holds up all the way to the 35mm edge in just about every way.
The biggest flaw that I can see is sharpness at 24mm, but if (when?) I get this lens I have a hard time believing I would ever shoot above 18mm.

The next biggest problem is that Samyang FE 14mm f2.8 AF lens just a few article slots below the Sigma review. I think this would be Samyang's first short flange distance wide angle lens, that is not a category that has been explored very much yet, and should have a lot of potential.

 

[ahsanford]

The biggest flaw that I can see is sharpness at 24mm, but if (when?) I get this lens I have a hard time believing I would ever shoot above 18mm.

I often joke the 11-24L is an 11mm prime.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

The biggest flaw that I can see is sharpness at 24mm, but if (when?) I get this lens I have a hard time believing I would ever shoot above 18mm.

I often joke the 11-24L is an 11mm prime.

- A

That would be because you don't own one.

Whilst the idea that if you don't need 11-14 or 11-15 there are better and cheaper options, so what? It might be nicer to be carrying around a 16-35 f4 IS but you aren't going to carry both and the 11-24 is superb throughout it's range.

I am a light travel photographer but an\m happy to take the 11-24 and some of the most compelling images I have shot with it have been at 11mm.

 

[9VIII]

The biggest flaw that I can see is sharpness at 24mm, but if (when?) I get this lens I have a hard time believing I would ever shoot above 18mm.

I often joke the 11-24L is an 11mm prime.

- A

That would be because you don't own one.

Whilst the idea that if you don't need 11-14 or 11-15 there are better and cheaper options, so what? It might be nicer to be carrying around a 16-35 f4 IS but you aren't going to carry both and the 11-24 is superb throughout it's range.

I am a light travel photographer but an\m happy to take the 11-24 and some of the most compelling images I have shot with it have been at 11mm.

Maybe my statement was a little vague.

I don't think wide angle Zoom lenses need to go above 20mm, I would probably shoot the Sigma 12-24 at 13-14mm most of the time anyway just to clean things up that tiny bit more.
As Ahsanford was implying, many people probably treat their wide angle Zoom lenses as though they were Primes, and this lens was obviously designed to compromise the longer half of the zoom range for the sake of the shorter half.

 

[ahsanford]

That would be because you don't own one.

Whilst the idea that if you don't need 11-14 or 11-15 there are better and cheaper options, so what? It might be nicer to be carrying around a 16-35 f4 IS but you aren't going to carry both and the 11-24 is superb throughout it's range.

I am a light travel photographer but an\m happy to take the 11-24 and some of the most compelling images I have shot with it have been at 11mm.

Maybe my statement was a little vague.

I don't think wide angle Zoom lenses need to go above 20mm, I would probably shoot the Sigma 12-24 at 13-14mm most of the time anyway just to clean things up that tiny bit more.
As Ahsanford was implying, many people probably treat their wide angle Zoom lenses as though they were Primes, and this lens was obviously designed to compromise the longer half of the zoom range for the sake of the shorter half.

+1. This.

PBD, I"m not knocking the upside of a lens that shoots as wide as 11mm or 12mm -- far from it. When I call an 11-24mm lens an 11mm prime, it's because 11mm FOV is the 'killer app' for that lens. You get it because of what it can uniquely do.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

The biggest flaw that I can see is sharpness at 24mm, but if (when?) I get this lens I have a hard time believing I would ever shoot above 18mm.

I often joke the 11-24L is an 11mm prime.

- A

That would be because you don't own one.

Whilst the idea that if you don't need 11-14 or 11-15 there are better and cheaper options, so what? It might be nicer to be carrying around a 16-35 f4 IS but you aren't going to carry both and the 11-24 is superb throughout it's range.

I am a light travel photographer but an\m happy to take the 11-24 and some of the most compelling images I have shot with it have been at 11mm.

Maybe my statement was a little vague.

I don't think wide angle Zoom lenses need to go above 20mm, I would probably shoot the Sigma 12-24 at 13-14mm most of the time anyway just to clean things up that tiny bit more.
As Ahsanford was implying, many people probably treat their wide angle Zoom lenses as though they were Primes, and this lens was obviously designed to compromise the longer half of the zoom range for the sake of the shorter half.

One of the things I liked about the 16-35 f4 IS was the overlap it gave me on the 24-70. I could work a reception happily with either once I knew the size of the venue and the table spacing. I find the 11-24 a much more limited lens for general use because of the 24mm cutoff.

If I am in a tight venue I'll be using the 11-24 on one body and the 35 f2 IS on another, for me that is a bit of a negative for the 11-24.

 

[ahsanford]

One of the things I liked about the 16-35 f4 IS was the overlap it gave me on the 24-70. I could work a reception happily with either once I knew the size of the venue and the table spacing. I find the 11-24 a much more limited lens for general use because of the 24mm cutoff.

If I am in a tight venue I'll be using the 11-24 on one body and the 35 f2 IS on another, for me that is a bit of a negative for the 11-24.

Wow. Shooting people at 16mm is already hard enough -- I can't imagine shooting an event at 11mm!

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

One of the things I liked about the 16-35 f4 IS was the overlap it gave me on the 24-70. I could work a reception happily with either once I knew the size of the venue and the table spacing. I find the 11-24 a much more limited lens for general use because of the 24mm cutoff.

If I am in a tight venue I'll be using the 11-24 on one body and the 35 f2 IS on another, for me that is a bit of a negative for the 11-24.

Wow. Shooting people at 16mm is already hard enough -- I can't imagine shooting an event at 11mm!

- A

Who said I did? I am saying an ultrawide zoom needs to go longer than 20mm.

When shooting receptions and functions I use my ultra wide angle zoom for table shots and atmospheric scene setters. Generally I don't need 11mm for that but I don't do events enough to justify two ultrawide zoom lenses, particularly given the 16-35 f2.8's prior to the MkIII haven't been worth using. I do need the 11mm for other work so the 11-24 was my ultra wide zoom of choice.

My point has been the counterpoint to yours and 9VIII in that the longer focal lengths of that zoom are essential for several of my uses of the lens, an 11-20 would be unworkable and too limiting for me for reception/event work, the 24 makes it viable and much more flexible. Obviously it isn't ideal, and if I did more of the event stuff I'd get the 16-35 f2.8 MkIII, but that 11-24 works well enough that I can get by with it.

 

[Alex_M]

apparently, it is weather sealed:

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_12_24_4/features/

"... Mount with dust- and splash-proof construction

The lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops. The front and rear lenses feature a water- and oil-repellent coating that is particularly useful when shooting in a drizzle, near ocean spray, and in a wide variety of other conditions..."

Thar she blows:
http://www.lenstip.com/488.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_12-24_mm_f_4_DG_HSM.html

• Sharp, but not the 'Art sharp' we've come to expect -- the 11-24L outperforms it, esp. in the center of the frame
• Coma is decent -- similar to the 11-24L
• For the Sigma AF wary shopper, the autofocus did not miss (0%) in testing, but one would hope an ultrawide + slower lens should get this result. (Still, it's good to know.)

From what I've read (please correct me if I'm wrong), the new Sigma lacks the 11-24L's rear ND slot and it isn't weather sealed, but otherwise it looks a solid and affordable alternative to the 11-24L.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

My point has been the counterpoint to yours and 9VIII in that the longer focal lengths of that zoom are essential for several of my uses of the lens, an 11-20 would be unworkable and too limiting for me for reception/event work, the 24 makes it viable and much more flexible. Obviously it isn't ideal, and if I did more of the event stuff I'd get the 16-35 f2.8 MkIII, but that 11-24 works well enough that I can get by with it.

Ah. Gotcha. Makes sense.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

apparently, it is weather sealed:

http://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/cas/product/art/a_12_24_4/features/

"... Mount with dust- and splash-proof construction

The lens mount incorporates rubber sealing to protect the mount from dust and water drops. The front and rear lenses feature a water- and oil-repellent coating that is particularly useful when shooting in a drizzle, near ocean spray, and in a wide variety of other conditions..."

Much appreciated! The Sigma would appear to be a compelling value in that light.

- A

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The original Sigma 12-24 was something of an odd lens. It was the first of it's type and had nothing that could compare or compete for many years. I bought mine when it was first released to compliment my then new 300D! Back then, getting a decent wide lens on a 1.6x crop was very difficult. Most of Canon's offerings were very expensive and not very wide at all. This was the only option back then.
When I got my 5D...wow...this lens really was WIDE! But it suffered from really mushy corners and dark dark vignetting in most apertures. I had to us it at either f11 or f16...anything else and the corners where terrible. But it was so well corrected for straight lines...there hasn't been anything this wide and that well corrected since. There was no straight line distortion..period.
The MkII was a massive upgrade in terms of sharpness and edge sharpness. The Vignetting was well controlled but the one key factor was that it wasn't so well corrected any more. In fact it had quite strong barrel distortion at 12mm, which was a pity.
This new lens looks very promising. It treads a nice line between sharpness, distortion, vignetting and corner sharpness. For an occasional use...poor mans 11-24L I think this will scratch a certain itch.
It'll be interesting to see how it compares to the Irix and Laowa prime offerings.
I also find that Simga launch prices are quite laughable. They tend to settle down after a year or so.

 

[Random Orbits]

One of the things I liked about the 16-35 f4 IS was the overlap it gave me on the 24-70. I could work a reception happily with either once I knew the size of the venue and the table spacing. I find the 11-24 a much more limited lens for general use because of the 24mm cutoff.

If I am in a tight venue I'll be using the 11-24 on one body and the 35 f2 IS on another, for me that is a bit of a negative for the 11-24.

+1. It is one of the reasons why I use the 16-35 f/4 IS so much more: because I can use it for people pictures at 35mm.

It is interesting that Lenstip review mentioned that the Sigma should be refocused after the aperture is stopped down at the long end of its focal length range due to uncorrected spherical aberration. That will limit its utility for many. The resolution at 24mm is significantly lower than the 11-24 f/4L, and if one don't use live view and stop down to f/8, then you would lose another 25%.

 

[ahsanford]

I also find that Simga launch prices are quite laughable. They tend to settle down after a year or so.

You sure about that? Since the 'Art Prime Era', price has been steady as a rock. Both the 35 and 50 Art remain at their original asking price.

- A