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

[Alex_M]

I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
Art family of lenses is totally different animal with completely different phylosophy behind the family of products.
This lens is priced at premium relative to other Art family members and positioned as a direct market competitor to the excellent Canon 11-24 F4 L lens.

LensTip found some of the focus shift but not to the extent I see looking at the images on the TDP lens review page. I am under impression that his review copy was somewhat out of tune... future will tell.

Unless we are looking at review of somewhat faulty copy of the lens, I think that Sigma dropped the ball this time. I believe that Sigma would be hesitant releasing a lens with such a drammatic focus shift properties. Not such an expensive and unique lens that performs that poor in that regard. I am dissapointed :'(

The EF 50mm f/1.2, which costs about the same, is known for having focus shift as well, and it costs about the same.

And the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 mk1 had its faults as well. E.g. it is famous for having internal reflections, as in the attached photos.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
Art family of lenses is totally different animal with completely different phylosophy behind the family of products.
This lens is priced at premium relative to other Art family members and positioned as a direct market competitor to the excellent Canon 11-24 F4 L lens.

LensTip found some of the focus shift but not to the extent I see looking at the images on the TDP lens review page. I am under impression that his review copy was somewhat out of tune... future will tell.

Unless we are looking at review of somewhat faulty copy of the lens, I think that Sigma dropped the ball this time. I believe that Sigma would be hesitant releasing a lens with such a drammatic focus shift properties. Not such an expensive and unique lens that performs that poor in that regard. I am dissapointed :'(

The EF 50mm f/1.2, which costs about the same, is known for having focus shift as well, and it costs about the same.

And the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 mk1 had its faults as well. E.g. it is famous for having internal reflections, as in the attached photos.

I'll be releasing a review of the 12-24 ART in the next week or so, but I have seen what he refers to...a few times. It doesn't always happen. For the most part, however, so much is in focus all the time with a lens like this that it is rare for an image to actually not be in focus.

Good news is that the Sigma 85 ART is the best focusing Sigma lens I've seen since the 150-600 Sport...though unlike the Tamron 85 VC, the consistency does take a bit of a hit when you move to the outer focus points on my 5D Mark IV.

 

[Antono Refa]

I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
Art family of lenses is totally different animal with completely different phylosophy behind the family of products.
This lens is priced at premium relative to other Art family members and positioned as a direct market competitor to the excellent Canon 11-24 F4 L lens.

How does that make it different from the 50mm f/1.2L?

 

[Alex_M]

1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime? no comments.

It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.

I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
Art family of lenses is totally different animal with completely different phylosophy behind the family of products.
This lens is priced at premium relative to other Art family members and positioned as a direct market competitor to the excellent Canon 11-24 F4 L lens.

How does that make it different from the 50mm f/1.2L?

 

[Antono Refa]

1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime? no comments.

It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.

1. How is age relevant? A photographer has to choose between whatever lenses are on the shelves, and his expectations should be set - as you claim - by it's price.

2. Primes are supposed to perform better then zooms, and the shallower the DOF (in this case due to longer focal length and wider aperture) the more focus shift is a problem. I can see why you'd rather not comment.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you & me included.

 

[Alex_M]

Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.
my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw. Not their phylosophy. They compete against the best of the glass and the old Sigma 12-24 non-Art lens is hardly their competitor
Canon 50/1.2L is a unique lens on many levels.That makes this lens so desirable that we are happy to forget it's design shortcomings. As I said, not likely this focus shift issue is by design. I am waiting for the Sigma Australian distributor's response to my request to clarify this issue.

1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime? no comments.

It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.

1. How is age relevant? A photographer has to choose between whatever lenses are on the shelves, and his expectations should be set - as you claim - by it's price.

2. Primes are supposed to perform better then zooms, and the shallower the DOF (in this case due to longer focal length and wider aperture) the more focus shift is a problem. I can see why you'd rather not comment.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you & me included.

 

[LordofTackle]

Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.
my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw. Not their phylosophy. They compete against the best of the glass and the old Sigma 12-24 non-Art lens is hardly their competitor
Canon 50/1.2L is a unique lens on many levels.That makes this lens so desirable that we are happy to forget it's design shortcomings. As I said, not likely this focus shift issue is by design. I am waiting for the Sigma Australian distributor's response to my request to clarify this issue.

1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime? no comments.

It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.

1. How is age relevant? A photographer has to choose between whatever lenses are on the shelves, and his expectations should be set - as you claim - by it's price.

2. Primes are supposed to perform better then zooms, and the shallower the DOF (in this case due to longer focal length and wider aperture) the more focus shift is a problem. I can see why you'd rather not comment.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you & me included.

Actually, the 50L is not THAT old, I believe it was introduced in 2006, so 10 yo.
But I concur with your opinion. Sigma wants to position itself as top dog in lens design, competing with high end Zeiss glass, while still having competitive pricing. In this case they just don't fulfill their own standards.

Just my 2c

-Sebastian

 

[Alex_M]

Sebastian,
It is quite impossible for a company like Sigma to not fulfill their own standards knowingly. I worked with a number of Japanese companies and hopefully, understood their way of thinking: it is either 100% perfect or none at all... 99,9% perfect isn't perfect and has to be improved.
Kazuto Yamaki following this phylosophy quite religiously. Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.

Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.
my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw. Not their phylosophy. They compete against the best of the glass and the old Sigma 12-24 non-Art lens is hardly their competitor
Canon 50/1.2L is a unique lens on many levels.That makes this lens so desirable that we are happy to forget it's design shortcomings. As I said, not likely this focus shift issue is by design. I am waiting for the Sigma Australian distributor's response to my request to clarify this issue.

1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime? no comments.

It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.

1. How is age relevant? A photographer has to choose between whatever lenses are on the shelves, and his expectations should be set - as you claim - by it's price.

2. Primes are supposed to perform better then zooms, and the shallower the DOF (in this case due to longer focal length and wider aperture) the more focus shift is a problem. I can see why you'd rather not comment.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you & me included.

Actually, the 50L is not THAT old, I believe it was introduced in 2006, so 10 yo.
But I concur with your opinion. Sigma wants to position itself as top dog in lens design, competing with high end Zeiss glass, while still having competitive pricing. In this case they just don't fulfill their own standards.

Just my 2c

-Sebastian

 

[Antono Refa]

Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.

Higher than Canon L primes?

First, could you, please, point me to a Sigma statement to that effect?

Second, Sigma doesn't have that brand perception where I live. As example, I'm not aware of any photography store where I live that would buy any 3rd party lenses, Sigma included.

[Last shop that did closed ~2 months ago with two 3rd party lenses I traded-in for a Canon lens on September 2013 on its used equipment shelve.]

*The* reason stores wouldn't trade in lenses is there's a problem selling them. Sigma, specifically, has bad reputation for unreliable AF, lenses being bricked, and IQ quality to match its low prices. Which is why the story about a focus shift problem sounds plausible.

my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw.

Source?

 

[chrysoberyl]

Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.

LensTip also observed this flaw; is it likely LensTip also had a flawed copy? No lens is perfect - at least I have not found one that is. It seems more likely that Sigma had to compromise a bit to optimize the lens.

 

[Alex_M]

Well, i am sorry to hear that the Sigma does not have that brand perception where you live. It certainly is very different in my part of the world. And I certainly had no issue in selling off my Art lens collectionand at very good prices. Yes, Many Sigma Art lenses are optically superior to older Canon L glass. There are large number of Sigma Art lens reviews available on line. They make some stellar glass. AF consistency was the issue of the past. Hopefully it is no longer an issue.

Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.

Higher than Canon L primes?

First, could you, please, point me to a Sigma statement to that effect?

Second, Sigma doesn't have that brand perception where I live. As example, I'm not aware of any photography store where I live that would buy any 3rd party lenses, Sigma included.

[Last shop that did closed ~2 months ago with two 3rd party lenses I traded-in for a Canon lens on September 2013 on its used equipment shelve.]

*The* reason stores wouldn't trade in lenses is there's a problem selling them. Sigma, specifically, has bad reputation for unreliable AF, lenses being bricked, and IQ quality to match its low prices. Which is why the story about a focus shift problem sounds plausible.

my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw.

Source?

 

[LordofTackle]

Well, i am sorry to hear that the Sigma does not have that brand perception where you live. It certainly is very different in my part of the world. And I certainly had no issue in selling off my Art lens collectionand at very good prices. Yes, Many Sigma Art lenses are optically superior to older Canon L glass. There are large number of Sigma Art lens reviews available on line. They make some stellar glass. AF consistency was the issue of the past. Hopefully it is no longer an issue.

Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.

Higher than Canon L primes?

First, could you, please, point me to a Sigma statement to that effect?

Second, Sigma doesn't have that brand perception where I live. As example, I'm not aware of any photography store where I live that would buy any 3rd party lenses, Sigma included.

[Last shop that did closed ~2 months ago with two 3rd party lenses I traded-in for a Canon lens on September 2013 on its used equipment shelve.]

*The* reason stores wouldn't trade in lenses is there's a problem selling them. Sigma, specifically, has bad reputation for unreliable AF, lenses being bricked, and IQ quality to match its low prices. Which is why the story about a focus shift problem sounds plausible.

my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw.

Source?

You beat me to it

just speaking about the optics, Sigma has released several lenses in the last years that rival, or even surpass, the respective offerings from Canon, Zeiss and the like. However, their biggest achilles heel is the sup-optimal AF function, and the possibility that your lens gets bricked with every new camera release.

 

[Alex_M]

Lenstip review is referring to a mild spherical abberation whether according to images provided by TDP the focus shift is not minor but very substantial. Please do not forget that we are talking 12mm focal length and F4 and resulting depth of field being measured in meters. It is hard to miss focus with lens being that wide at F4 unless you are at MFD

P.S. hyper focal distance at 12mm and F4 is only 1.21m. For a subject located 1.21m in front of the camera, Near focus distance : 0.6m (0.6m in front of the subject) and far focus at infinity. What I see on TDP images is seriously out of focus subject and that's is very concerning...

Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.

LensTip also observed this flaw; is it likely LensTip also had a flawed copy? No lens is perfect - at least I have not found one that is. It seems more likely that Sigma had to compromise a bit to optimize the lens.

 

[chrysoberyl]

Lenstip review is referring to a mild spherical abberation whether according to images provided by TDP the focus shift is not minor but very substantial. Please do not forget that we are talking 12mm focal length and F4 and resulting depth of field being measured in meters. It is hard to miss focus with lens being that wide at F4 unless you are at MFD

P.S. hyper focal distance at 12mm and F4 is only 1.21m. For a subject located 1.21m in front of the camera, Near focus distance : 0.6m (0.6m in front of the subject) and far focus at infinity. What I see on TDP images is seriously out of focus subject and that's is very concerning...

Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.

All noted and thanks for the clarification. TDP is not a place where I go for reviews anyway.

 

[Sarpedon]

Lenstip review is referring to a mild spherical abberation whether according to images provided by TDP the focus shift is not minor but very substantial. Please do not forget that we are talking 12mm focal length and F4 and resulting depth of field being measured in meters. It is hard to miss focus with lens being that wide at F4 unless you are at MFD

P.S. hyper focal distance at 12mm and F4 is only 1.21m. For a subject located 1.21m in front of the camera, Near focus distance : 0.6m (0.6m in front of the subject) and far focus at infinity. What I see on TDP images is seriously out of focus subject and that's is very concerning...

Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.

LensTip also observed this flaw; is it likely LensTip also had a flawed copy? No lens is perfect - at least I have not found one that is. It seems more likely that Sigma had to compromise a bit to optimize the lens.

This was also observed by DP Review (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-12-24mm-f4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review/4). Note that the phenomenon is most apparent in the second half of the zoom range:

"It is worth noting that at 12mm the Sigma performs exceptionally well in terms of sharpness, nearly matching the performance of the Canon lens across much of the frame, albeit never matching its central sharpness. This performance is maintained up until a focal length of about 18mm. Beyond 18mm the performance starts to really fall off due to the effects described in the text above, requiring you to focus and shoot at F8.... The fact that longer focal lengths require you to focus at the shooting aperture to obtain the sharpest images possible is frustrating, even more so because this comes at a cost to corner sharpness. "

 

[Alex_M]

Many thanks for the link provided. It apears that my initial thoughts were correct: Sigma droped the ball with this lens quite badly. Given the results provided by DP Review, I do not see this lens being strong financial success for Sigma. Not sure why they released such a weak performing lens.

... This was also observed by DP Review (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-12-24mm-f4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review/4). Note that the phenomenon is most apparent in the second half of the zoom range...

 

[pulseimages]

Looks like Sigma is falling back to their old Stinkma reputation with this lens.

 

[Alex_M]

That's taking it way too far. It is not the best Art lens they ever released but still light years ahead of some / many competitors? Why calling names? I am exited to receive my Sigma 85/1.4 Art in about a month from now.
I also feel privileged to afford such a wonderful glass for a fraction of what it cost me should I decide to purchase a competing product.

Looks like Sigma is falling back to their old Stinkma reputation with this lens.

 

[heretikeen]

Haters will hate.
Most Canon fanboys still haven't gotten over the fact that Sigma now produces equal if not superior lenses you don't have to bleed through the nose for, and they're happy about any and all perceived fault they can gloat over.
1.000 USD more or less is no difference for you? Good for you, clap on the shoulder, but don't talk about stuff you obviously don't know anything about. With the right amount of preparation and adaptation (which is a pain in the ass, granted) you can fit any Art lens to your camera ... at least it worked with the three lenses I use for live photography (20, 35 and 50 1.4 A).
Of course it's easier to justify spending piles of money on your latest man hobby toy if the "lesser" lenses are inferior, and if they aren't, well, let's just pretend they are. And let's pounce on any opportunity to tell the world that you with your +/- 1.000 USD tolerance know exactly what's up.
Seriously, after wine connoisseurs hardcore photo amateurs must be the most stuck-up and prejudiced bunch there is. It's the result that matters, not your fancy red ring.

 

[privatebydesign]

Haters will hate.
Most Canon fanboys still haven't gotten over the fact that Sigma now produces equal if not superior lenses you don't have to bleed through the nose for, and they're happy about any and all perceived fault they can gloat over.
1.000 USD more or less is no difference for you? Good for you, clap on the shoulder, but don't talk about stuff you obviously don't know anything about. With the right amount of preparation and adaptation (which is a pain in the ass, granted) you can fit any Art lens to your camera ... at least it worked with the three lenses I use for live photography (20, 35 and 50 1.4 A).
Of course it's easier to justify spending piles of money on your latest man hobby toy if the "lesser" lenses are inferior, and if they aren't, well, let's just pretend they are. And let's pounce on any opportunity to tell the world that you with your +/- 1.000 USD tolerance know exactly what's up.
Seriously, after wine connoisseurs hardcore photo amateurs must be the most stuck-up and prejudiced bunch there is. It's the result that matters, not your fancy red ring.

Sometimes I would agree with you, camera owners can be a bore, but on this particular lens you are plain wrong.

Given the high bar set by Sigma's Art lenses, when I first heard about Sigma releasing this lens at a fairly affordable price I was extremely excited. Unfortunately though, the lens fell short in several aspects. The fact that longer focal lengths require you to focus at the shooting aperture to obtain the sharpest images possible is frustrating, even more so because this comes at a cost to corner sharpness. The lens does have some very nice attributes including its handling of flare, vignetting, CA, distortion and its impressive sharpness across the frame at 12mm, but much of that becomes a minor footnote when looking at the lens sharpness, especially beyond 20mm.

For my money I would choose the Canon 11-24mm F4L over the Sigma. It really is one of the sharpest wide-angle zooms that I've ever had the opportunity to shoot with, plus it's fully weather sealed. The lens' short comings with respect to CA, vignetting and distortion are all largely correctable through the use of your favorite post processing software, so they don't really impact the final image quality all that much. In short, I really wanted to love the Sigma, but the Canon just flat outperformed Sigma across the focal range, which makes it worth the extra money in my opinion.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-12-24mm-f4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review/4

$1,000 less for a lens with such limitations just sounds like $1,500 wasted to me.