Sigma 12-24...buy or no buy?

[Arnie]

i read a review on this lens which gave it a very positive feedback. now, i am a few inches short on deciding to get this lens for my 10D and EOS3. your feedback will surely help me decide whether to buy it or to pass on it. so buy or no buy?

[mikeg]

I found those sites if you want to see sample images :

http://www.pbase.com/fengtianrui and http://dpr.jirman.com/12-24

[EXA1a]

It's not all about test shots. They don't tell you how YOUR lens will perform. From my own experiene and from what I read in different forums, the 12-24 can be a pretty good lens, quite comparable to the Nikon 12-24. For Canon EF you don't have any alternatives in that zoom range.
There are some lenses out there which have serious alignment problems and produce partial fuzzy pictures. My recommendation would be: Buy one at a place where you can easily return it. Do some erious testing and look especially for asymmetrical blurs. Look here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7300583
Make sure you didn't get e lemon and you'll be happy with the lens.
See also Petteri's review, he is a real WA expert:
http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html


--Jens--

[CoolToolGuy]

Check this thread - http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26053
The lens may work fine now, but if you upgrade bodies you may be in for an adventure.
If Sigma charged a reasonable 'service policy' type service to retain your compatibility it might be worth it, but this is 'take the money and run'. :evil:

Have Fun
Rick :roll:

[Andy_T]

If Sigma charged a reasonable 'service policy' type service to retain your compatibility it might be worth it, but this is 'take the money and run'. :evil:


I thought the 're-chipping' was free of charge for the newer Sigma lenses?

Regards,
Andy

[CoolToolGuy]

If Sigma charged a reasonable 'service policy' type service to retain your compatibility it might be worth it, but this is 'take the money and run'. :evil:


I thought the 're-chipping' was free of charge for the newer Sigma lenses?

Regards,
Andy

Okay, but if you have an 'older' lens...

What's next - 're-firmwaring' :?:

I don't want to be bothered with it. I know my Canon lenses will continue to work. I'm just not that much of a gambler...

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[defordphoto]

When I was shopping for my wide I considered this lens. But, I read a few too many problems regarding build quality and photo quality for my comfort level and went with the trust L-series Canon 17-40 and am thrilled with this lens. It performs exactly as advertised and I haven't looked back.

[LiquidMantis]

This just doesn't get easier. I've been wanting to get this lens to cover my wide angle needs but all the anti-Sigma sentiment has me wondering if I should get the 17-40L instead. I'm worried that the 17 will leave me wanting for more field of view though. :? That overlay photo really showcases the difference those 5mm make.

[Mikesht]

This just doesn't get easier. I've been wanting to get this lens to cover my wide angle needs but all the anti-Sigma sentiment has me wondering if I should get the 17-40L instead. I'm worried that the 17 will leave me wanting for more field of view though. :? That overlay photo really showcases the difference those 5mm make.

I do not think that the difference is that significant. On the other hand, Canon is a sure thing, and what's the price difference? That's the main question for me- if the difference in price is no too huge, I would get Canon.

[CoolToolGuy]

I am struggling with this, too, because I want a good W I D E A N G L E lens as well. I can't justify the 16-35 'L', so I am chasing down wide primes or one of the Sigma's - 12-24 or 15-30. But I tend to want to have them and use them for a long time, and upgrade the body when appropriate.

With digital, body upgrades will be more common than with film, so I am willing to plunk down the cash for the glass - but not to get two years down the road and hear about 'signal path changes' or '64-bit focus chips' or whatever else comes along that make my lenses obsolete. Canon has done a good job of maintaining compatibility within the EF lens inventory, so that counts for me.

I'm hearing that Sigma is doing free chip upgrades, but I'm not convinced that covers it all.

Of course, I am still a little upset that I have all of this good 'FD' glass sitting around that is just about worthless. But that is really another issue. :cry:

And, what I really want is a full frame sensor, or (wait a minute) a 1.3 crop factor (like maybe a used 1D? ). Oops, gotta go check the used stuff at B&H... :roll:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[EXA1a]

Most of your posts have nothing to do with the original question. How can you compare 12mm with 17mm? Apples with oranges? Do you have a faint idea what wide angle is good for?
12mm on a 10D/300D gives you close to 90° angle of view horizontally, whereas 17mm gives you 67.5°. At a distance of 3m you get a 5.56m field of view with the 12mm, whereas the 17mm gives you 3.98m horizontally. See the 5mm difference?
BTW: Ultra wide angle lenses give you a very special perspective when you're getting very close, and that's why you use it. It's not about getting lots of things into the frame.

--Jens--

[CoolToolGuy]

Most of your posts have nothing to do with the original question. How can you compare 12mm with 17mm? Apples with oranges? Do you have a faint idea what wide angle is good for?
12mm on a 10D/300D gives you close to 90° angle of view horizontally, whereas 17mm gives you 67.5°. At a distance of 3m you get a 5.56m field of view with the 12mm, whereas the 17mm gives you 3.98m horizontally. See the 5mm difference?
BTW: Ultra wide angle lenses give you a very special perspective when you're getting very close, and that's why you use it. It's not about getting lots of things into the frame.

--Jens--

Whose posts are you referring to?

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just FYI,..

This is Sigmas Newest lens.
The "re-chipping" will not be neccesary for any current Canon body with a new Sigma lens.

No this does not "future proof" the lens against other possible changes..

...but it may be quite some time before Canon roles out another AF design. (or it COULD be the next camera to come out :? )

The problems with the 10D and Sigma lenses were not isolated to the 10D but to all Canon cameras that utilized the (relatively) "NEW" 7 point AF in the Elan series.

What has happend to the older Sigmas is no worse than what Nikon has done with there AF lenses over the years.. in fact it is still possible to buy a brand new Nikon body and a brand new AF lens and them not function together ... :roll:

[Canuck]

I looked at the Sigma offerings and I even got to play with a 12-24 EX lens in a Jessops in York one day. I ended up going Canon and the 16-35mm F2.8L on that one. I was concerned about the distortion at 12-16mm and so that made up my mind.

[defordphoto]

This just doesn't get easier. I've been wanting to get this lens to cover my wide angle needs but all the anti-Sigma sentiment has me wondering if I should get the 17-40L instead. I'm worried that the 17 will leave me wanting for more field of view though. :? That overlay photo really showcases the difference those 5mm make.

I do not think that the difference is that significant. On the other hand, Canon is a sure thing, and what's the price difference? That's the main question for me- if the difference in price is no too huge, I would get Canon.

Same price.

[CoolToolGuy]

For those who might have trouble following along:

Some non-Canon lens suppliers have a history of issues with compatibility with the EF lens protocol. There have been several threads on this forum that discuss lenses that worked on the camera they were bought for, and then no longer functioned on a newer EOS body, or other compatibility issues. Some folks have found an otherwise perfectly good lens relegated to the junk pile because they couldn't use them any more, and their resale value was nil. Some folks have discussed this with the lens manufacturer and found that, although the manufacturer was willing to help out, their trade-in offer was lacking. It seems that, of late, one of these manufacturers has agreed to provide new chips for lenses that fail to function due to an update by Canon.

Wide angle lenses for Canon DSLRs present an issue due to the crop factor. To get the angle of view of a 24mm lens (in the 35mm film world) requires a 15mm lens. Canon doesn't make a rectilinear 15mm lens, and the 14mm that they do make is outrageously expensive.

That leaves zooms, and the issue doesn't get any better. The 20-35 is not wide enough, neither is the 17-40. And the 16-35 is a lot of money, and still doesn't get you the 84 degrees AOV of a 24mm lens.

So, when trying to find a wide angle, other suppliers should be considered. However, some of us like to keep our lenses for a long time since they represent a huge investment - in some cases costing more than the bodies they're used on. When the other suppliers have compatibility issues, they are rejected, and that is frustrating since you are back to square one.

One solution that has been discussed on this forum before is the full-frame sensor as in the EOS 1Ds, which allows a 24mm lens to be a 24mm lens.

I hope that EXAmple 1A has been clear enough to provide a faint idea of the postings in this thread.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Arnie]

Thanks for all your replies.

I have already the 17-40L and i only have praises for this lens. I agree to one poster that Sigma 12-24 is the only alternative (for the moment) for Canon DSLR users who really need a wide angle lens.

I do weddings and there are situations that a wide angle lens is ideal. I guess i am going to get this lens for those FEW situations that my Canon 17-40L cannot cover. In that case, the Sigma 12-24 will be my 2nd sigma lens among my Canon arsenal. The other one is the Sigma 15mm fisheye. Hmmm...i realize now that i can classify my sigmas as "my specialty lenses" and my canons as "my workhorse lenses"

[Belmondo]

I was making myself nervous trying to write a eulogy yesterday, so I ran over to Canoga Camera to ‘browse’ and to give my brain a little rest. I played with the 12-24 for a while on my own 10D, and it worked really well (in the store). I decided to buy it to have on my upcoming trip to the East Coast. So far so good. I’ve owned two other Sigma lenses in the past, including a newer 17-35, and they both had focusing problems. There’s no hint of a problem so far on this lens even in the low light of of my hotel room last night, and the FOV is impressive! I’ll take some pictures while we’re gone, and if any of them are worth looking at, I’ll stick them in Share Photos and put a link in this thread.

Back to writing my eulogy now.

Thos.

[defordphoto]

I'm curious to see how that little Sigma works out for you, especially having problems with TWO other Sigma lenses. I did like the look of that matte-black finish though, but just could not pull the Sigma switch and stayed with the tried-and-true.

[stuartf287]

I have had the Sigma 12-24 for about 2 or 3 months now and I love it. I also have the Sigma 14 F2.8 and the 12-24 zoom is noticeably wider. It works great on my D60 and my wife's 10D. I have no problems with the sharpness and contract, and in any event there is no other way to attain the same coverage with a 1.6 crop sensor camera. As far as I'm concerned, all of the whining about not being able to use filters is far beside the point. The only truly beneficial filter you can't duplicate in photoshop is a circular polarizer, and polarizing filters don't work very well with ultra-wide angle lenses anyway. They tend to create dark bands at random through the sky because the lens includes both portions of the sky where the filter works best and those where it has little effect. Count me as 1 strong Sigma supporter. The gap between 12mm and 17mm is huge. (5/17 = 29.4% -- at its widest the Sigma is nearly 30% wider than the Canon at its widest setting). My widest 35mm film lens was 17mm and I really missed that coverage with the Canon dslrs. The Sigma gets me down to around 19mm equivalent -- close enough. The 17-40 Canon, while a truly wonderful lens, only gets you to about 27mm equivalent. I'd call that moderate wide, not truly or ultra wide.

[defordphoto]

Sigma has Canon beat here for extra wide. They (Canon) don't have anything to offer without moving into fisheyes. If I had a need for that extra wide I would have considered the Sigma harder, but with the MKII coming with its 1.3x sensor, it becomes a non-issue for me and made the 17-40 decision easier. Had I been staying with the APS sized sensors then yes, Sigma is by far the clear choice for extra wides.

[WestFalcon]

The latest popular photography magazine has a favorable review on the 12-24 Sigma...check it out

[iwatkins]

Thos
Have fun with this lens, it is what this lens is all about. I call it my "Party Lens" because of the great effects you get doing close-ups of groups of people. Basically, the wackier the angle you shoot from, the wackier the ouput. Also does a nice job as a landscape/architecture lens. I love it and is still my favorite lens and I've had it over a month. :wink:

All
Amateur Photographer magazine here in the UK also gave it a very good review. Which was nice as I had already bought the lens and had already come to the same conclusion. :lol:

For info. I include my 17mm versus 12mm shot for those wondering about different FOV.

Sigma 17-35 (at 17mm) overlayed on Sigma 12-24 (at 12mm)

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~iwatkins/Gallery/sigma_comp.jpg


Cheers

Ian

[stuartf287]

Further thoughts. I have matched up the Sigma 12-24 with a 24-70L and a 70-200L IS. I also carry a Sigma 400mm 5.6, but really want a 100-400L to complete the zoom coverage from 12-400 in only 4 lenses with very little overlap. Maybe I should take a look at the Tamron 200-400.

[Belmondo]

For info. I include my 17mm versus 12mm shot for those wondering about different FOV.

Wow, that's sure a graphic demonstration of the extra FOV. Thanks.

Tom