Experiences about Sigma 12-24 in photojournalistic use?

Do Sigma 12-24's focus speed and other features make it a lens that is good for documenting life in photojournalistic style? Are there any issues that I might experience? So far I've found mostly landscape and architecture related discussion.

When it is used on 1D series, am I going to miss something compared to 5D mark 2 + 16-35 mark 1?

Earlier I thought that it needs too much light but these days high ISOs are pretty good. It also sounds like an attractive one lens ultra wide solution for two bodies with different sensor sizes.

It's a nice lens, but it's insanly wide. I don't remember the focus speed or the build quality enough to give you a decent answer on those aspects.
A friend of mine is a professional photojournalist, and nearly always shoots with an UWA. The widest he uses is a Sigma 20mm 1.8. Any wider is just too much for him. But that's a matter of personal preference I guess.

Maybe the best way to figure this out is to try this lens for an assignment and see how it performs.

good luck with your choice!

It's very wide - completely different to the 16-35 for sure. If you're trying to capture people then it may not be the best lens in the world although it can offer some unique perspectives. Focus speed is pretty quick - never something I've had an issue with .

If you're using crop and FF then it's a solid choice and makes sense.

Cpt.Vanquisher wrote in post #11046655
It's a nice lens, but it's insanly wide...The widest he uses is a Sigma 20mm 1.8. Any wider is just too much for him.

A nice thing about 12-24 on 1D would be that it is, like you said, insanely wide at 12mm (even more on FF) but also "boringly ordinary" at 24mm when ultra wide feel is not needed.

On FF it is a pure UWA and it requires more lens swaps/cropping than on 1D.

Spacemunkie wrote in post #11046862
Focus speed is pretty quick - never something I've had an issue with .

This is music to my ears. Is there someone who doesn't agree? Quick enough for indoors as well? It doesn't have to be quick enough for sports.

I guess I would have to pay more attention to focusing as focus points are not cross-type due to its slow max. aperture.

For photojournalism I'd say you want a faster lens to cover more lighting situations. AF is fast enough but the lens may be too wide as already said. I think there are good reasons you see a 16-35 or 24-70 a lot on PJ's cameras, with a 70-200 on a second body.

Anders Östberg wrote in post #11046983
I think there are good reasons you see a 16-35 or 24-70 a lot on PJ's cameras, with a 70-200 on a second body.

I'm asking about 12-24 because I'm considering different options to achieve a setup similar enough to 16-35 and 70-200 (35mm equivalent) on two bodies with some additional other requirements.

If 1D is one of the bodies, I need a lens that is very wide both on 1D and 5D mk II. 16-35 on 1D isn't always wide enough for me and 5D mk II's poor outer focus points mean that I can't take full advantage of 16-35 on 5D.

I've considered many different combinations but I end up in some kind of compromise in every one of them.

ppusa wrote in post #11047201
I'm asking about 12-24 because I'm considering different options to achieve a setup similar enough to 16-35 and 70-200 (35mm equivalent) on two bodies with some additional other requirements.

If 1D is one of the bodies, I need a lens that is very wide both on 1D and 5D mk II. 16-35 on 1D isn't always wide enough for me and 5D mk II's poor outer focus points mean that I can't take full advantage of 16-35 on 5D.

I've considered many different combinations but I end up in some kind of compromise in every one of them.

f/4.5-f/5.6 (IIRC) is way too slow for a lot of PJ work, imo. Also, in my experience one can never have fast enough AF for PJ and the 16-35 is about as fast as it gets in that range. I find that 16 on FF is plenty wide for all that I shoot. If 16 isn't wide enough, then maybe I'm trying to fit in too much.

twoshadows wrote in post #11047575
f/4.5-f/5.6 (IIRC) is way too slow for a lot of PJ work, imo.

I used to think so but now that 5D mk II and 1D mk iv are a few stops better in high ISO than 1D mk ii, I'm wondering if 12-24 is already good enough.

Naturally there are always situations even with the best equipment when a photo can't be taken due to lack of light but would 12-24 be good enough?

You probably know best what light you expect for the things you photograph; maybe go back and check a few old pictures? Personally I would think the lens is slow unless you can use flash. It depends on what you plan to shoot of course, and what noise your application can accept.

ppusa wrote in post #11046966
This is music to my ears. Is there someone who doesn't agree? Quick enough for indoors as well? It doesn't have to be quick enough for sports.

I guess I would have to pay more attention to focusing as focus points are not cross-type due to its slow max. aperture.

I have a 12-24mm but I am not a PJ...

I use it for landscape too, for shooting people you need to use it at around 14-15mm-24mm or else you will get distortion on the edges (typical UWA characteristics).

the build quality is superb and the AF speed is fast, but I have not used Canon L lenses so I am not sure if fast for me would be fast enough for you. and the front element is bulging, without means of protecting it without the cap on.. so consider that also.

I am pretty happy with my copy, except when sometimes I want to use filters and I can't.