Sigma 12-24 - share your thoughts/photos

I've been stuck with just a 70-200 for waaaaaaay too long and I want to add a UWA to change my photos a bit and give me some flexibility. I'm using a 1.3x body, so I guess my only realistic option is the Sigma 12-24.

I've looked at PBase, but the random crappy images are nothing compared to what everyone here can do. Please share your best photos with the Sigma 12-24 and share any opinions on this lens, especially the build quality, thanks.

There are several tests that include the Sigma 12-24 here:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

I've heard good things about it from people who know what they're talking about but also warnings of considerable sample variation.

foxbat wrote in post #2114591
There are several tests that include the Sigma 12-24 here:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

I've heard good things about it from people who know what they're talking about but also warnings of considerable sample variation.

Hey those tests are taking inside of Bob Rigbys. Thats my local camera specialist

foxbat wrote in post #2114591
There are several tests that include the Sigma 12-24 here:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

Thanks, that's a lot of help.

FWIW, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L is a great lens on that body and will complement your line-up nicely. It's more expensive than the Sigma for sure, but you'll have better bokeh, closer focusing, weathersealing and be able to use filters on the front of the lens (as opposed to rear gels). May or may not be of worth to you...

There's always the 17-35mm and 17-40mm too.

That Sigma is a DG mount - isn't that crop bodies only anyway?

both sigma and tamron have 17-35mm f/2.8-4s.
and both are dg or di, which is for both full frame and crop bodies.

Jaetie wrote in post #2115704
both sigma and tamron have 17-35mm f/2.8-4s.
and both are dg or di, which is for both full frame and crop bodies.

Ahh, okay. Cool. We like options.

yea DG is the coating....on sigma the DC lens is the crop body only lens

It's a good lens with solid performance. It's no speed demon, of course, nor is it a lightweight. Filters are problematic, as one expects for a full-frame 12mm lens.

But I don't know of a full-frame 12mm lens in the Canon EF mount that can do any better. (How does one consider the 16-35 an alternative to a 12-24? The difference between 16 and 12 is profound.)

Here's an example at 12mm (all the examples are with a 10D):

Rick, I really like the composition of that last shot. Excellent work with shadows, too Do you have a hi-res of it?

Thanks for the clarification on the Sigma mounts - I wasn't quite sure, which is why I suggested the 16-35mm. A 12mm wouldn't do any good if you couldn't mount it.

I got this lens several days ago. I just went on street and shot some testing pictures. I like it since it is a interesting lens and it allows u to do a lot of things. But comparing to the other lens i have, the picture looked no sharp. It is a UWA, u r not expecting very sharp pictures such EF 24-70 can take.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by TINYPIC

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by TINYPIC

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by TINYPIC

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by TINYPIC

Strangely, my 12-24 is super sharp, even in the corners (1.6x).
I buyed mine used on a forum and I'm very happy with it.
I don't find the weight or the size be an issue. The lens is relatively short
and feels good in the hand. The build construction is on par with other
EX lens. HSM drive is silent and fast. The lens exhibit some serious performance
in the distortion departement. It's the best UWA for barrel/pincussion distortion.
Check photozone review for better detail.

My only grip, it's a slow lens. But can be used at relatively low shutter speed.
I've done night city shots up to 0.5s handheld and 1sec braced and come up
OK up to 8x10 print.

Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

yours looked a lot sharper than mine. But i do not think my copy is bad. I handhelded to take those pictures and all were taken at between 1/150-1/60s. U must have firm hand to handhled 0.5s and still turned out ok. My hand just could not handle anything slower than 1/200.

angryhampster wrote in post #2115972
Rick, I really like the composition of that last shot. Excellent work with shadows, too Do you have a hi-res of it?

Thanks. I do have a hi-res, but not available online.

Rick "who only posts downsampled images or a small crop, for the most part" Denney