Is it worth getting "Sigma 12-24 Art f4"

Good afternoon everyone, hope your all well.

So I do a lot of travel photography and I have a mix range of lenses for capturing different things.

And one of them is "Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM" first edition lens.

Now a Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM II lens came out and now there is the expensive "Sigma 12-24 Art F4"

the new F4 lens is significantly more pricey and was wondering if its worth getting as an upgrade?

Has anyone used any of this lens to give the verdict, if its worth spending the money to get it ?

here are some mix albums where you can see i have used the 12-24 and and I think it does a good job given this lens was released in 2003 ish.

Stockholm City Hall
https://www.facebook.c​om …album_id=192984​5403708496

The White Church
https://www.facebook.c​om …album_id=191553​3195139717

The Hill of Crosses
https://www.facebook.c​om …album_id=189907​7283451975

Vasa - A 17th Century Warship That Sank
https://www.facebook.c​om …album_id=183727​7569631947

Please let me know what you think and your suggestion and advise would be really helpful to make a sensible decision.

Here are a few images taken with the "Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM" first edition lens. You be the judge. I personally see no reason to upgrade. Even the first-edition lens works wonderfully in good light.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Hkjn​Gu

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/HJ6z​Qa

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rraL​Za

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UfyB​Hc

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UmZC​BS

Unless there is a significant flaw in the older lens (flaring, vignetting, comma etc) that the new lens eliminates, I'd stick with the old lens. Unless you shoot astro, where you will see some benefit from the larger aperture.

Today, there is no significant benefit in terms of subject isolation from the larger aperture (it is too wide an angle lens for limiting the DOF) or the speed (we can increase the ISO to achieve hand-holding speed).

An item I noticed in your albums. You do not try to maintain the axis of your lens as horizontal as possible, resulting in noticeable vertical distortion/convergence​. This is a rectilinear lens. If its axis is horizontal, the verticals will be vertical and parallel without any (or much) correction in post. This means that you will throw away part of the picture in post, as your toenails may show at 12 mm.

See how Arutemu has kept his verticals ...well, vertical.

I had the II. Wonderful lens. I sold it for the 8-16 on crop. Better setup. No way the Art is worth the cost.

thanks Arutemu, love your photos!

Much appreciated

Thanks MakisM1 for pointing out the correction on vertical to me, I was not fully aware but your advise is really helpful and now I can see what you mean and how i should be using the lens.

Thank you!

AsifSalam wrote in post #18640332
thanks Arutemu, love your photos!

Much appreciated

I echo that comment. Great work. One question; I've been to a few of the places you show and the "coloration" seems unusual. Was that done on purpose?

Assuming you are asking me What coloration is that? I did punch up vibrance a bit, but other than that, am not sure what you are referring to. If there is a color cast, it may be due to my old laptop with uncaibrated monitor If you point to a specific photo/coloration, I might have a better answer.

Great Pics Arutenu!!