Odd question on Sigma 12-24

Background: I have a crop and a FF. Currently I have a 10-22 for the crop, and no UWA for the FF. I was thinking either getting a 17-40 for the FF, or a sigma 12-24 for both.

I was leaning more towards the sigma 12-24, I read the reviews, saw the shots, etc. etc. etc. I don't mind loosing the 2mm on the wide end on the crop.

My main deterrents are that I can't use filter on the sigma and that the filter thread is 82mm (all my filters are 77mm, and I don't want to re-invest in 82mm filters -- I'd rather go for the 17-40).



My odd question: I know it has a "filter hood" adapter for 82mm, can I use a step-down ring to get it to be 77mm and use an ND/GND/CPL at 17mm without vignetting on a FF?

A simple answer: No.

easy enough, thanks.

IVIax wrote in post #8898767
Background: I have a crop and a FF. Currently I have a 10-22 for the crop, and no UWA for the FF. I was thinking either getting a 17-40 for the FF, or a sigma 12-24 for both.

I was leaning more towards the sigma 12-24, I read the reviews, saw the shots, etc. etc. etc. I don't mind loosing the 2mm on the wide end on the crop.

My main deterrents are that I can't use filter on the sigma and that the filter thread is 82mm (all my filters are 77mm, and I don't want to re-invest in 82mm filters -- I'd rather go for the 17-40).


My odd question: I know it has a "filter hood" adapter for 82mm, can I use a step-down ring to get it to be 77mm and use an ND/GND/CPL at 17mm without vignetting on a FF?

No, you can't unfortunately. Even when using an 82 mm with the way the filter holder is implemented you will get vignetting on FF at the shorter FLs.

Just do a search for Ben Jacobsen's remedy for using filters with the 12-24. That could be a solution to your problem.

Regarding the 17-40L: IMO, you get better IQ with a 17-40L on FF than with an EF-S 10-22 on APS-C - I've done both. You have to be aware, however, that below 20 mm the 17-40L is a little soft in the extreme corners, which may be a problem if you want to fill the frame completely with a subject or many subjects, especially detailed ones.

The Sigma 12-24 DG EX I assume is the one you're talking about, is IMO not worth the money. I had one and really rushed back to the supplier as fast as I could, about ten days later. It is best below 20 mm, yes, but even then it is, IMO, not really very good for 1/3 all the way from the edges towards the centre. It is extremely soft everywhere, details are completely smeared, and CAs are atrocious, and neither of these go away when stopping down. I was really disappointed by it. If you really need 12 or 13 mm, there is no other choice, unless you'd consider a Canon fisheye with a defishing tool, but otherwise I'd suggest you invest either in the 14L Mk II, or the AF-S Nikkor 14-24 1:2.8 G ED N with G-EOS adapter. Yes, a manual lens for Canon, but it truly is superb. Compared to the Nikkor, the Sigma is a blown-out, floppy candle compared to a hard and blistering sun.

A reason to go for the 14L II is distortion, or rather lack of, and AF. The Nikkor has about 4 % barrel distortion on FF at 14 mm, although only 1.5 % on APS-C. I have to say here that distortion is very low on the Sigma 12-24 as well. To me i tlooks like (lack of) image distortion was very high on the design list with this lens, well higher than image quality.

The Nikkor with G-EOS adapter is about twice the price of the Sigma, but it is sharp, and 1 1/3 to 2 stops faster than the Sigma. The 14L II is about 235 % of the price of the Sigma.

In short, my advice is to go with a 17-40L on FF, and to stay away from the Sigma 12-24 DG EX, unless you really need 12 or 13 mm for FL, although a good fisheye with defishing software may well be a better alternative, IMO. If you need to go below 17 mm on FF at very good IQ, I'd suggest the Nikkor 14-24, or the Canon 14L II, but you do pay for those.

Kind regards, Wim

Square filters - Lee or Cokin Z

wimg wrote in post #8898944
No, you can't unfortunately. Even when using an 82 mm with the way the filter holder is implemented you will get vignetting on FF at the shorter FLs.

Just do a search for Ben Jacobsen's remedy for using filters with the 12-24. That could be a solution to your problem.

Regarding the 17-40L: IMO, you get better IQ with a 17-40L on FF than with an EF-S 10-22 on APS-C - I've done both. You have to be aware, however, that below 20 mm the 17-40L is a little soft in the extreme corners, which may be a problem if you want to fill the frame completely with a subject or many subjects, especially detailed ones.

The Sigma 12-24 DG EX I assume is the one you're talking about, is IMO not worth the money. I had one and really rushed back to the supplier as fast as I could, about ten days later. It is best below 20 mm, yes, but even then it is, IMO, not really very good for 1/3 all the way from the edges towards the centre. It is extremely soft everywhere, details are completely smeared, and CAs are atrocious, and neither of these go away when stopping down. I was really disappointed by it. If you really need 12 or 13 mm, there is no other choice, unless you'd consider a Canon fisheye with a defishing tool, but otherwise I'd suggest you invest either in the 14L Mk II, or the AF-S Nikkor 14-24 1:2.8 G ED N with G-EOS adapter. Yes, a manual lens for Canon, but it truly is superb. Compared to the Nikkor, the Sigma is a blown-out, floppy candle compared to a hard and blistering sun.

A reason to go for the 14L II is distortion, or rather lack of, and AF. The Nikkor has about 4 % barrel distortion on FF at 14 mm, although only 1.5 % on APS-C. I have to say here that distortion is very low on the Sigma 12-24 as well. To me i tlooks like (lack of) image distortion was very high on the design list with this lens, well higher than image quality.

The Nikkor with G-EOS adapter is about twice the price of the Sigma, but it is sharp, and 1 1/3 to 2 stops faster than the Sigma. The 14L II is about 235 % of the price of the Sigma.

In short, my advice is to go with a 17-40L on FF, and to stay away from the Sigma 12-24 DG EX, unless you really need 12 or 13 mm for FL, although a good fisheye with defishing software may well be a better alternative, IMO. If you need to go below 17 mm on FF at very good IQ, I'd suggest the Nikkor 14-24, or the Canon 14L II, but you do pay for those.

Kind regards, Wim

Wow, thank you very much for the detailed explanation.

Yep, the Sigma 12-24 DG EX is the one I was talking about. I don't *need* the 12-13mm range on a FF, I liked it after playing with the sigma in store AND I was looking for a "cheap" solution to having just 1 UWA lens for both cameras.

But nothing is cheap when it comes to cameras . Since it looks like I can't have just 1 lens for both, then I think I'd rather go the route of the canon 17-40. Though I will look into the Nikkor that you were talking about.

Thanks again!

Analog6 wrote in post #8898984
Square filters - Lee or Cokin Z

Thanks.
I saw that, I think on this site, someone did a detailed analysis with multiple pictures.

I already have normal filters (I guess normal is not the right word here...), so I'd rather get a new lens than replace my filters (just for convenience sake).

Do you need UWA coverage on both bodies? If it were me, I would just pick on body to get an UWA for. FF might be better as far as detail for wide angle landscapes, so maybe trading your 10-22 for a 17-40L would be the best option rather than trying to cover both.

tkbslc wrote in post #8899027
Do you need UWA coverage on both bodies? If it were me, I would just pick on body to get an UWA for. FF might be better as far as detail for wide angle landscapes, so maybe trading your 10-22 for a 17-40L would be the best option rather than trying to cover both.

I thought about that too, thanks.

And I'm not sure I do need an UWA on both sides, but it's more of a convenience thing.

I'm a hobbyist, and sometimes I like the convenience of traveling "light" (i.e. T1i crop body, instead of the 5D; a few primes and an UWA, instead of a few zooms and etc.). So I thought maybe an "all-in-one" would be decent, but I guess that's out of the question...

I may end up selling the 10-22 to get the 17-40, since I use the FF more.

IVIax wrote in post #8898990
Wow, thank you very much for the detailed explanation.

The pleasure is mine. I recognized similar dilemmas to my own, so I thought I'd chip in with my own experiences .

Yep, the Sigma 12-24 DG EX is the one I was talking about. I don't *need* the 12-13mm range on a FF, I liked it after playing with the sigma in store AND I was looking for a "cheap" solution to having just 1 UWA lens for both cameras.

But nothing is cheap when it comes to cameras . Since it looks like I can't have just 1 lens for both, then I think I'd rather go the route of the canon 17-40. Though I will look into the Nikkor that you were talking about.

Thanks again!

Ok, just for comparison, some prices and details, so you are aware what you may be letting yourself in for . Prices in euros as you may find over here in the NL.
Sigma 12-24 DG EX: ~850 euros
Nikkor 14-24 G ED with G-EOS adapter: ~1650 euros (includes +/- 200 euros for G-EOS AF confirm adapter)
Canon 14L II: ~1900 euros

Sigma: AF, wider than anything else, very little distortion, bad CA, bad IQ on FF, no flare resistance, reasonable (but not great) on APS-C, slow (F/4.5 - F/5.6)
Nikkor: excellent IQ, fast (F/2.8 ), at low end noticeable distortion, no CA to speak off, some flaring may occur, MF lens on Canon bodies, requires very good and expensive adapter (check 16-9.net: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/), however it really has extreme good sharpness at any FL
Canon: excellent prime, good AF, fast (F/2.8 ), only little distortion, great IQ, very flare resistant, slightly less sharp in the corners (but still sharp), some CA but not a lot, very expensive

All of these have some vignetting wide open, but the Sigma is worst.

Some tests: http://www.16-9.net …4mm_1/nikon14_2​4mm_a.html

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #8898944
Just do a search for Ben Jacobsen's remedy for using filters with the 12-24. That could be a solution to your problem.

why hello there!

here' the thread:
http://www.newschoolof​photography.com/forum/​showthread.php?t=17432

and the general idea:

I don't think you got a good copy honestly. As those who know me know (Wimg certainly included) I've tried EVERY UWA option available, some more than once. I've had a 17-35, 12-24, 17-40, 16-35II, 17-40 again, 16-35, 12-24 again and then the 17-40 again. I LOVE wide angles and I like buying/trading, so if people offer to buy whatever I have at the time, it goes and I get something new/different. Anyway, BOTH of my 12-24mm lenses were VERY sharp and had very good CA and flare control ONCE STOPPED DOWN. If you were doing serious landscape work with it you HAD to have it down to at least f/8 or it was dark in the corners (not hard vignetting, but vignetting). It's crap inside because it's so slow as well. If you need filters to work easily, this is not the lens for you, but they will work, and they actually work better than on my new UWA toy:

Thanks Ben and Wing, I really do appreciate all the help.

I'm either going to sell the 10-22 and get the 17-40, or just get the 17-40 to add to my collection.

The other 2 lenses (the Nikkor and the Canon 14L) are out of my budget at the moment.

Hi Ben,

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8899284
why hello there!

Hi there!

I imagined you would show up if I mentioned your name here .

here' the thread:
http://www.newschoolof​photography.com/forum/​showthread.php?t=17432

and the general idea:

Thanks for showing this once more! I always thought this was quite a clever contraption .

I do know, and to be very honest, I still don't understand your infatuation with the Sigma, based on my own experiences. I tried two at the store, took one home (the best of the two ), and I just gave up after two lamdscape sessions. I compared lots of photographs everywhere, and found the exact same problems everywhere. Not sharp in the corners and along the edges, smeared details, lots of CA, vignetting, at all f-stops.

Personally, I have used a 17-40L, EFS-10-22, a 14L (from a friend), the Sigma 12-24, and now a Nikkor 14-24 .

The vignetting is IMO about the only thing that improves a litle when stopping down this lens. It is, IMO, best at F/16, but by then diffraction has set in already, even on FF. I won't try another, no need, and don't want to either. I am done with Sigma now. They'll have to come up with a completely different concept, and one I really need, before I try another of their products.

It's crap inside because it's so slow as well. If you need filters to work easily, this is not the lens for you, but they will work, and they actually work better than on my new UWA toy:

Converted a lens cap I see. How well does it work?

BTW, that's my latest UWA toy, too, but on a different (brand of) body . And I finally received my G-EOS adapter, V 2.1, yesterday. With a very good adapter, this lens is absolutely amazing. I hope to do some detailed testing this week, but so far so good. I tried it with a cheaper standard AF confirm adapter, using part of a toothpick to operate the aperture, but that certainly isn't ideal, although it was clear that this lens is way, way better than the Sigma 12-24. The lever on the G-EOS adapter works remarkably well, and you can see from the shutter speed selected which aperture you have selected, so that's great, be it a bit slow compared to all-automatic lenses.

I'll see how it goes.

Kind regards, Wim

jacobsen1 wrote in post #8899284
I've tried EVERY UWA option available, some more than once. I've had a 17-35, 12-24, 17-40, 16-35II, 17-40 again, 16-35, 12-24 again and then the 17-40 again.

what made you keep going back to the 17-40L?

wimg wrote in post #8899702
Converted a lens cap I see. How well does it work?

BTW, that's my latest UWA toy, too, but on a different (brand of) body . And I finally received my G-EOS adapter, V 2.1, yesterday. With a very good adapter, this lens is absolutely amazing.

yep, lens cap. It was a PITA to make because it turns out the hood tapers as you go further on. So I had to file out more of the inside of the cap/adapter than I thought I would, but once done it works well.

as for this lens, I love to hate it. First off, I hate it's pricetag! I just get hung up on using really expensive lenses like these (the 16-35II is the other culprit) when lesser lenses can get the job done. When landscaping I don't need f/2.8 nor it's AF speed which is why it's so expensive (that and the nikon tax). But because I also use it indoor with my son, I'm starting to accept it's roll. I just always wonder about the 12-24mm... At times I miss that 2mm, but it's just a smaller, lighter cheaper lens that works (for me) just as well once stopped down. I know you don't love it though.

Jaetie wrote in post #8951706
what made you keep going back to the 17-40L?

Had a 12-24mm. Wasn't even for sale, and I loved it on FF, but Snir/Blonde offered me more than fair market for it since I had a sharper than normal copy... At the same time I'd been wondering about a 15mm FE, so I sold him my 12-24 and went for a 15mm FE AND 17-40. Then I got upgrade fever and a X-mas bonus so I went for a 16-35II. I had to sell the 17-40 to fund it. That lens wasn't enough better for me so I eventually sold it and came back to the 17-40mm. Well then I went to a 16-35I (cheaper and smaller/lighter) to see if f/2.8 would work inside my house with my son (at f/4 the 17-40 was really only an outside lens for me as I'm not a flash guy)... I had that for quite a while (for me at least) but then when I was selling my canon 50mm to go to a sigma 50mm they guy offered me a trade of my 50 for his 17-40 EVEN. So I couldn't refuse that deal and went back to it. Having it and the 16-35 in the same bag meant some more lens tests and I switch back to it... But I'd already been thinking of coming back to the 12-24mm again so a few months later I did that!!!

CNs: I love wide angles and don't pass up deals when they're offered. I also believe in trying lenses over trusting online reviews, so I've had just about every FF UWA out there at one point to see if I'd like it.