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

[heretikeen]

Yes, I am obviously not talking about this particular lens I neither own nor care much for. It's just this obnoxious behaviour towards Sigma or Tamron lenses in general.

 

[privatebydesign]

Yes, I am obviously not talking about this particular lens I neither own nor care much for. It's just this obnoxious behaviour towards Sigma or Tamron lenses in general.

Sigma have earnt that reputation. Maybe you weren't a camera owner when the Sigma lenses didn't work with the first DSLR's and Sigma wouldn't rechip them? I personally know a guy who owned six Sigma lenses he used on his film EOS cameras, not one of them worked or were eligible for rechipping when he went digital. It takes time to get over customer issues like that, rleasing a lens that clearly has issues just adds fuel to those old fires.

 

[Eldar]

Yes, I am obviously not talking about this particular lens I neither own nor care much for. It's just this obnoxious behaviour towards Sigma or Tamron lenses in general.

Sigma have earnt that reputation. Maybe you weren't a camera owner when the Sigma lenses didn't work with the first DSLR's and Sigma wouldn't rechip them? I personally know a guy who owned six Sigma lenses he used on his film EOS cameras, not one of them worked or were eligible for rechipping when he went digital. It takes time to get over customer issues like that, rleasing a lens that clearly has issues just adds fuel to those old fires.

I did not own 6 Sigma lenses that were not rechiped, but I owned 5 Art lenses (2x35/1.4 and 3x50/1.4). They were all returned due to inconsistent AF. There will not be a sixth!

 

[heretikeen]

Sigma have earnt that reputation. Maybe you weren't a camera owner when the Sigma lenses didn't work with the first DSLR's and Sigma wouldn't rechip them? I personally know a guy who owned six Sigma lenses he used on his film EOS cameras, not one of them worked or were eligible for rechipping when he went digital. It takes time to get over customer issues like that, rleasing a lens that clearly has issues just adds fuel to those old fires.

And I think that about sums up the grip wealthy Canon fans have with Sigma (plus Tamron):
"They used to be bad, why can't they be bad anymore? That's cheating, something is bound to be fishy."
Much to my colleague's astonishment, I used to use a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC instead of the first version of Canon's 24-70 2.8, and you know why? Because it was SO MUCH BETTER. And it was the same as with Sigma's lenses: "Oh, Tamron, those trash lenses, can't be good." Ignorance just hurts.

 

[privatebydesign]

Sigma have earnt that reputation. Maybe you weren't a camera owner when the Sigma lenses didn't work with the first DSLR's and Sigma wouldn't rechip them? I personally know a guy who owned six Sigma lenses he used on his film EOS cameras, not one of them worked or were eligible for rechipping when he went digital. It takes time to get over customer issues like that, rleasing a lens that clearly has issues just adds fuel to those old fires.

And I think that about sums up the grip wealthy Canon fans have with Sigma (plus Tamron):
"They used to be bad, why can't they be bad anymore? That's cheating, something is bound to be fishy."
Much to my colleague's astonishment, I used to use a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC instead of the first version of Canon's 24-70 2.8, and you know why? Because it was SO MUCH BETTER. And it was the same as with Sigma's lenses: "Oh, Tamron, those trash lenses, can't be good." Ignorance just hurts.

I used Tamron lenses for years, the Adaptall 2 70-210. But you are barking up the wrong tree here in this thread and conflating manufacturers. Tamron are not Sigma, Sigma do have a track record of great designs let down by engineering and implementation, it is not just spoilt rich Canon owners that say that. There are countless reports of Sigma lens issues, both lenses not working on newer bodies and inconsistent AF performance. What point is a few more LPMM on a chart or a few hundred dollars still in the bank if nothing is in focus in real life?

Bad experiences are not "ignorance", the bad experiences people like Eldar and my friend have had are why people have this attitude towards Sigma. The fact that they have released a $1,500 lens that has been shown to have IQ issues by everybody who has tested one shows they are still not where they need to be for people who rely on getting the image in focus.

Not all third party equipment is behind Canon equipment, but clearly this lens is. Like I say, to 'save' $1,000 on a lens that clearly has issues is not saving $1,000 at all, it is throwing away $1,500. This is not the lens to make your heroic stand about Don Quixote.

 

[Sporgon]

Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.

 

[LordofTackle]

Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.

Per live view

 

[Sporgon]

Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.

Per live view

;D duh ! I was preoccupied in focusing on the viewfinder, and never mind how hard I press the DOF button my Canons won't focus with it depressed !

 

[LordofTackle]

Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.

Per live view

;D duh ! I was preoccupied in focusing on the viewfinder, and never mind how hard I press the DOF button my Canons won't focus with it depressed !

right before I sent that post, I double checked that this is not possible....^^

Actually, does anyone know WHY it is not possible to focus with the DOF button pressed? (even by accepting maybe a AF accuracy penalty due to the smaller aperture and thus less effective AF). Technical reasons? sorry if that is a stupid question...

 

[Sporgon]

Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.

Per live view

;D duh ! I was preoccupied in focusing on the viewfinder, and never mind how hard I press the DOF button my Canons won't focus with it depressed !

right before I sent that post, I double checked that this is not possible....^^

Actually, does anyone know WHY it is not possible to focus with the DOF button pressed? (even by accepting maybe a AF accuracy penalty due to the smaller aperture and thus less effective AF). Technical reasons? sorry if that is a stupid question...

Yes if you could it would be a neat solution to the issue of focus shift on the 50L at around f1.6

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Depends on how you look at it. To me the $1,000 extra for in focus shots trumps pretty much anything. I held on to my 16-35 f2.8 MkI for so long because it focused like a heat seeking missile, I could live with the other IQ limitations because I could 100% trust focus. Now I shoot with the Canon 11-24 and never give focus a thought with that lens either.

Now before we get the usual dof covers miss-focus/focus shift when using UWA lenses I'd like to point out that is simply wrong. Getting subject separation even with wide f4 lenses isn't that difficult if you know what you are doing.

P.S. Has anybody else noticed how much brighter the Canon f4 is in the center of the frame than the Sigma at f4?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1084&Camera=979&LensComp=977

I make that 20 points on a 256 scale, or over 2/3rds stop.

Generally, I would agree with you concerning Sigma's AF issues. But it's less of an issue with wider angle lenses. The Depth of field at 12mm is massive...so AF accuracy is a bit of a non issue in this context. I think where this lens will really come unstuck is when it's compared to the 11mm and 12mm primes that are about to be launched. I think that most people are generally using this type of lens at it's widest focal length..so sort of a prime anyhow.

 

[chrysoberyl]

P.S. Has anybody else noticed how much brighter the Canon f4 is in the center of the frame than the Sigma at f4?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1084&Camera=979&LensComp=977

I make that 20 points on a 256 scale, or over 2/3rds stop.

A substantial difference. Is it a function of the vignette? More vignette equals a brighter center?

 

[Chapman Baxter]

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.

Which images are you referring to? If it's the images of the jewellery, that's not focus shift, it's Bryan deliberately focusing manually in front of and behind the plane of sharp focus to evaluate longitudinal chromatic aberation.

As Dustin says, at such wide focal lengths, practically everything is in sharp focus regardless. I can set my 12-24mm Mk II so that everything from 3m to infinity is sharp without ever readjusting focus. As far as I'm concerned, focus-shift with this lens , of all lenses, is being blown out of proportion.

 

[privatebydesign]

Depends on how you look at it. To me the $1,000 extra for in focus shots trumps pretty much anything. I held on to my 16-35 f2.8 MkI for so long because it focused like a heat seeking missile, I could live with the other IQ limitations because I could 100% trust focus. Now I shoot with the Canon 11-24 and never give focus a thought with that lens either.

Now before we get the usual dof covers miss-focus/focus shift when using UWA lenses I'd like to point out that is simply wrong. Getting subject separation even with wide f4 lenses isn't that difficult if you know what you are doing.

P.S. Has anybody else noticed how much brighter the Canon f4 is in the center of the frame than the Sigma at f4?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1084&Camera=979&LensComp=977

I make that 20 points on a 256 scale, or over 2/3rds stop.

Generally, I would agree with you concerning Sigma's AF issues. But it's less of an issue with wider angle lenses. The Depth of field at 12mm is massive...so AF accuracy is a bit of a non issue in this context. I think where this lens will really come unstuck is when it's compared to the 11mm and 12mm primes that are about to be launched. I think that most people are generally using this type of lens at it's widest focal length..so sort of a prime anyhow.

I disagree, DOF can be narrowed down to half a dozen blades of grass as my image and 100% crop illustrate.

According to LR I have taken 1/3 of my images at 11mm.

 

[Alex_M]

There are images of a tree branches shot at a various aperture. You can click through and see how the focus has shifted Towards infinity. Quite a substantial focus shift for such a wide lens.

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.

Which images are you referring to? If it's the images of the jewellery, that's not focus shift, it's Bryan deliberately focusing manually in front of and behind the plane of sharp focus to evaluate longitudinal chromatic aberation.

As Dustin says, at such wide focal lengths, practically everything is in sharp focus regardless. I can set my 12-24mm Mk II so that everything from 3m to infinity is sharp without ever readjusting focus. As far as I'm concerned, focus-shift with this lens , of all lenses, is being blown out of proportion.