Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical

[MarkK0120]

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? A good friend of mine, who likes to spend money on photography toys and then let me play with them :), just bought it -- I get to take it on Sunday for a couple of weeks. I'm just wondering what to expect -- I've never used such a wide angle lens before. I would think there would be some level of distortion, but she seems to think there will not due to the aspherical construction. (I'm not even sure exactly what this means.)

Anyway, thoughts would be appreciated, so I'll know what to look for. Now if I could just get her to buy the Mark II instead of the 10D she has her eyes on...

[htbyron]

Does anyone have any experience with this lens?
I would think there would be some level of distortion, but she seems to think there will not due to the aspherical construction. (I'm not even sure exactly what this means.)


I haven't tried it, but I'm intrigued to hear what you think after running it through its paces.

Have you seen this review?
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

Tom

[Guillermo Freige]

I've a 12-24 and I'm very happy with it. Just bought it a couple of days ago, but already shoot some 150 pictures indoors and outdoors. Very sharp lens at all apertures, with almost no chromatic aberration or purple fringing. I've used it mostly at 12 but also took some shots at 18 and 24.
You can see some pictures in my gallery (the last pictures in the Digital rebel gallery)
Regarding usage, AF is very fast and silent, but be careful with the perspective at 12. Best results are achieved with the camera perfectly leveled and pointing to the horizon. Tilted pictures have a very wild perspective and unleveled shots look plain wrong.

[MarkK0120]

Interesting review - thanks! Seems to give me some good things to look for...

[iwatkins]

It is my favorite Sigma lens. Love what it does to the perspective, if you mess about. If you don't mess about, it is also a pretty good wide angle lens for landscapes/skyscape shots.

Great quality output and just great fun to shoot with.

Cheers

Ian

[richpix]

Have you seen this review?
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

Tom

I looked at that review and then at another one he had done on the 35mm f/2. Seems he did his comparisons using the camera hand-held! That's not really the best way to compare lens sharpness. I would think the camera should be tripod-mounted and mirror locked up to get proper results and a fair comparison. Therefore, I find his tests to be questionable. They're OK for practical field tests, but not good for comparison of optical quality.

[Guillermo Freige]

Sorry rich, but I disagree.
First, how many shoots you'll take using tripod and mirror lock?. In my case the answer is zero, so I like to see how the lens behaves in normal shooting conditions, and that means handheld and no mirror lockup.
Second, it's a wideangle lens, how much shaking you expect to see, even at lower shutter speeds as 1/60 or 1/125? And mirror lockup has no sense at such shutter speeds in wideangle lenses, so I think it´s a moot point.

[richpix]

Sorry rich, but I disagree.
First, how many shoots you'll take using tripod and mirror lock?. In my case the answer is zero, so I like to see how the lens behaves in normal shooting conditions, and that means handheld and no mirror lockup.
Second, it's a wideangle lens, how much shaking you expect to see, even at lower shutter speeds as 1/60 or 1/125? And mirror lockup has no sense at such shutter speeds in wideangle lenses, so I think it´s a moot point.

If you're comparing and testing sharpness, as he did, it is imperative to make the playing field as level as possible, and that means tripod-mounted and mirror locked up (if the latter is an option on the camera in use). It doesn't take much camera movement to throw off results, no matter the scope of the lens, and no matter how steady the photographer thinks he is--you want to see how sharp the lens is, not how steady the photographer is.

And I agreed with you in my post that the other work he did for practical field testing of the lens was OK and makes sense.

[richpix]

An addendum: People might be surprised at how much better their photographs might look if they did use a tripod and mirror lock-up more often, instead of snapping willy-nilly and being satisfied with half-assed results.

[Andy_T]

Guillermo,

actually, the photographs in your gallery are convincing enough for me ... even cropped.

Still, as I've heard a lot of contradicting things about Sigma's quality control, I'd rather buy it at a reputable camera shop where you can return the lens if it turns out to be a lemon...

Best regards,
Andy

PS: OK, maybe my 'diplomatic' way of stating the above is not quite correct. I haven't really heard any *good* things about Sigms's quality control so far, so 'contradicting' might not be the right word...

[Arnie]

here are my sample photos using the sigma 12-24.

http://community.webshots.com/user/arniea2004

[Joytek]

I have the 10d and the sigma 12-24. Compared to my 17-40 and 70-200 f4, the sigma is fairly soft at anythign lower than f8, but it is WIDE as heck. That is the reason why I bought it. Since 95% of my shots are taken using a tripod (and mirror lock up, of course), I shoot mainly at f 13 (seems to be the sweet spot for the 10d), and thus have no probs with this lens.

I live in Seoul, South Korea, a filthy, and extremelly dusty city. The fact that one can't attach a filter in front of the front element on this lens, really sucks.

But overall this lens does what it says it will, it goes wider than anything else on the market (for canon, that is) without going fisheye. Very nicely corrected lens.

Thumbs up.

Wojtek