2 sigmas

[c0ntr0lz]

getting ready for the trip to Flagstaff AZ and i'm looking for a wide angle to take with me, and plus it'd help at the cars shows.

test:

http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/images/12-24mm_12.jpg

http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/images/12-24mm_24.jpg

http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/images/15-30mm_15.jpg

http://ctrlzproduction.com/images/images/15-30mm_30.jpg


i really like the lenses and they were very nice. the 12-24 was SUUUUPER quiet and fast. so now which to get, more debating

[Olegis]

Only you can make the choice, as only you can tell how wide you really need. I'm happy with my 15-30, but for some this is simply not wide enough (24mm only on 1.6 body). The 12-24 goes all the way down to 19mm - now that's WIDE.

[Jon]

I got the 15-30 (12-24 wasn't out) and really like it, except it's so big. If the 12-24 had been out, I would have gotten it (and may yet), plus it's smaller (no lighter, but smaller) and HSM.

[c0ntr0lz]

yeah he said that the 12-24 was made just for the Digital cameras to lessen distortion.

so jon how much do you use it, and do you have an issues with it?

[Jon]

Whenever I'm out deliberately shooting, I swap between the 15-30 and 100-400, with occasional shots at intermediate lengths. Like I noted, the size is the big problem - an inch or so shorter and it'd almost never come off the camera. It's a little noisier than I'd like (everything else I have has USM); if I had the 12-24 instead that'd be perfect.

[roanjohn]

Nice!!!

That Sigma 12-24 is pretty amazing.!!!

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

This link has an action you can download to fix the softness that supposedly appears in the corners.

If I have to choose, I would go for the widest............

Ro1

[RikWriter]

The 12-24 is great, very sharp and super wide angle. I love mine. Have fun in Flagstaff...it's one of my favorite places (along with Moab, Utah).

[Case]

yeah he said that the 12-24 was made just for the Digital cameras to lessen distortion.

I don't think this is true. Certainly the lens performs better on a 1.6x camera like the 10D etc, but it also works fine on a full frame camera (i've used mine on a friends film EOS).

Chris

BTW, i love my lens. I haven't had a lot of time/good weather to play with it yet...but here's some OK samples :
http://chrisidle5118.fotopic.net/c192770.html

[c0ntr0lz]

great thanks for the info guys
and it's a great price too at about 660

[Belmondo]

The Sigma 12-24 was the first non-Canon lens I bought and kept. It does quite well, although at 12mm, there is some CA. It's very acceptable, though, so I'd have to say it's a great lens, especially for the money.

[RikWriter]

The Sigma 12-24 was the first non-Canon lens I bought and kept. It does quite well, although at 12mm, there is some CA.

I haven't noticed any with my 10D or my Digital Rebel previously.

[PJ]

Please tell me that is not a Ritz Camera Store!

They are ok to test equiptment, but never buy anything from them.

forgive me if I'm wrong

I would highly reccomend the 12-24 by the way.

[ron chappel]

If it's relevant,canon will announce a 10-22mm zoom any day now...
http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/images/hiRes/HiRes_EF-S%2010-22%20Slant.jpg

But it might not be available until at least a month away.

[Murph7355]

The Canon lens is EF-s so won't fit on anything other than the 300D and "20D"...

More pics from a 12-24. Sorry for the poor photos but I wasn't really doing them for aesthetics or technique, just a quick test.

The 28mm shot is my 28-135 IS USM lens. It had a polariser on the front so comparisons are far from fair. That said, the colours from the 12-24 lens are truer.

Happy with the lens and the width (on a 1DmkII) will give the possibility for some good shots I think.

http://homepage.mac.com/ajm7/CanonComp2/index.htm

If anyone would like originals, I can send them. But they're BIG. Up to 5Mb and still only shot JPEG!

[ron chappel]

But even if the new canon and the sigma are comparable in price/quality,i still wouldn't nessesarily recommend the canon even though it is wider.


Being able to use the sigma on a film camera/full frame digi @12mm is a seriously tempting thing! :D

[c0ntr0lz]

belmondo that's good to hear thanks

PJ yeah it's Wolf/Ritz I don't buy lenses from there get them online they are cheaper

ron that would be a cool lens but when they come out with it i bet it'll be up in the 1500-2000 range maybe one of these days

Murph7355 thanks for the photos they look great and it looks like it would be a perfect lens for my car shows/shots

[Murph7355]

Cars and buildings are why I bought it predominantly. Landscapes too.

I was pretty much touching the white and silver cars in those shots! Very strange walking up to the car looking through the viewfinder at 12mm and nudging into it yet still almost being able to get it all in! Albeit with an odd resultant angle.

[ron chappel]

I was going to ask jokingly about that very thing MURPH! :lol: :lol:

They are so 8) ,huh?

[cmM]

do you really need to go that wide for cars?
I shot some cars with a 20mm Canon lens, and I thought that was wide enough...
http://www.cmuntean.net/images/jul24hin18.jpg

[Murph7355]

Truth is, you probably don't. Whch is why I took plenty of shots at 17mm (few on the link above).

17mm would probably do fine.

But imagine that the car park with the truck in it was full of Ferrari's finest, and that you only had a quick go without loads of people in it.

Or imagine a field full of VeeDubs, and you can get them all in a single hit.

I'm partly convincing myself here (:) ), but it's not too hard to envisage when the extra width could be very handy. If you're up for a very wide lens.

[Murph7355]

I was going to ask jokingly about that very thing MURPH! :lol: :lol:

They are so 8) ,huh?

I'll be off to do some more viewfinder testing this weekend. Next in the series is "just how long does it take to reach that tree showing nicely at 400mm".