Do you need something wider then 35?

I carry a 10-20 on a crop body for some great wide angle shots of the venue, etc.

Is it necessary? No. But it's sure a heck of a lot of fun!

Didn't you just say that the sigma 12-24 is a "total POS"?

umphotography wrote in post #13408394
david ziser swears by the Sigma 12-24. I seen his work with it and its excellent. I cant find a copy that is extremely soft in the corners. Looks like he shoots with it way above F/5.6 most of the time. 12mm on Full Frame is Wide. I googled david ziser and sigma 12-34 on images link and was blown away at what he does with the lens. Im inclined to think its a lot more PP but it sre is wide

google

http://www.google.com …2l0l355l2869l0.​1.4.5l10l0

Ziser pro Talk

http://digitalprotalk.​blogspot.com …re-bet-on-our-future.html

gh patriot wrote in post #13557507
Didn't you just say that the sigma 12-24 is a "total POS"?

It looks like the post you just quoted was a month old, now that Mike has tested it for his purposes he seems to have changed his mind.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #13557754
It looks like the post you just quoted was a month old, now that Mike has tested it for his purposes he seems to have changed his mind.

No...actually i have not changed my mind now that i tested it. It still is a total POS lens

Its extremely soft in the corners and does not get sharp until F/8 or F/9. Anything is sharp at F/8 or F/9. Also the two i tested had bad barrel distortion. Tested the canon 16-35. It was great but costs $1400.00 new right now. Tested the tokina 12-24 and it vignetted until 15.5 on the 1.3 format sensor. Eventually purchased the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8. Works great on the 1.3 format sensor. stops vignetting at 12.5 mm and gives me a 16mm FOV on the MarkIV. Worked for my needs. wished at covered 16-24 FOV so i will have to switch to our 17-35 for that.

Bryan. also got my hands on that tokina 16-28 F/2.8. That thing is a tank. feels like the brick on a full frame 5D2. A little heavy but man, talk about sharp everyplace at F/2.8. Its sharper than the canon. Downside is no filters. you cant screw anything on the front. Not enough sun outside to test and see if it flared. I would think that Ken rockwells review is spot on about the lens.

Ill check out that tokina, I have the sig 12-24 and although the focal length is nice, its IQ is sooo poor. Thanks for the info. I shoot with my 35 and 70-200 for weddings and it works out great for 95% of the shots.

umphotography wrote in post #13558367
No...actually i have not changed my mind now that i tested it. It still is a total POS lens

Its extremely soft in the corners and does not get sharp until F/8 or F/9. Anything is sharp at F/8 or F/9. Also the two i tested had bad barrel distortion. Tested the canon 16-35. It was great but costs $1400.00 new right now. Tested the tokina 12-24 and it vignetted until 15.5 on the 1.3 format sensor. Eventually purchased the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8. Works great on the 1.3 format sensor. stops vignetting at 12.5 mm and gives me a 16mm FOV on the MarkIV. Worked for my needs. wished at covered 16-24 FOV so i will have to switch to our 17-35 for that.

Bryan. also got my hands on that tokina 16-28 F/2.8. That thing is a tank. feels like the brick on a full frame 5D2. A little heavy but man, talk about sharp everyplace at F/2.8. Its sharper than the canon. Downside is no filters. you cant screw anything on the front. Not enough sun outside to test and see if it flared. I would think that Ken rockwells review is spot on about the lens.