Sigma 12-24mm on FF - examples?

<p>I have a friend who loves the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 HSM on their 5D2 as it works on FF. I was wondering if anybody has this and used it, and can provide some imagery and context from the lens on a FF body. I love the idea of being able to get wider than the 16-35/2.8 on a FF camera, and 12mm is pretty darn wide (I'm thinking zooms, not primes). Add in that you get to zoom (adding some utility) and it seems like a lens worth considering (and considering it I am). Especially as Canon can't seem to be bothered to come up w/ anything in a similar range.</p>

<p>Really, I'd love to see what this lens is capable of, since, despite it's limitations (namely f4.5-5.6), it appears to be the only uber-wide FF zoom available anywhere (I could be wrong of course... I'm sure somebody would let me know).</p>

<p>Have you tried <a href="http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=232&camera=1113&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3"><strong>this</strong></a>?</p>

<p>Marcus,</p>

<p>Also try these sites in addition to Bueh's recommendation:</p>

<p>Photosig.com (set up a free login account)<br>

Pbase.com</p>

<p>Many (but not all) of the photos in my 2010 portfolio folder were made with the Sigma 12-24. I love the lens and since I usually shoot with it stopped down to f/8 or f/11 the lack of speed doesn't bother me. I find it particularly useful for near-far compositions when shooting in the horizontal orientation. With less wide lenses (like the Canon 17-40) I usually have to shoot vertically to get a lot of foreground and sky into the same shot. At 12mm I can usually fit in all the foreground that I want.</p>

<p>I have the direct ancestor of it, the Sigma 15-30mm. It's a better buy (only used, of course) and also an excellent ultrawide on a "fool frame" (FF?) camera.<br>

I have owned lots of Sigma lenses over the last 50 years, and only one (which was very susceptible<a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=0uD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=M7yLTcaHKs7ogAfAvbXQDQ&ved=0CBYQBSgA&q=susceptible&spell=1"><strong><em></em></strong></a> to flare at night) has ever really disappointed.</p>

<p>I own the 12-24 Siggi - there are two issues with this lens - corner sharpness (even stopped down) and flare - mine flares with the slightest sign of sun in the frame.</p>

<p>The Italian photographer Juza uses the 12-24:<br>

http://www.juzaphoto.com/<br>

I was just shooting with mine today:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clgriffin/sets/72157626343218898/</p>

<p>And here is a sample of a SWA shot cropped from full frame to emphasize the wide angle.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Bueh- I hadn't, thanks! The downside is that you can hardly tell what it looked like before post on that site. I can't really tell what's been cropped and how much. In particular, some great shots of architectural work were posted, but the lines looked WAY to straight to have been pulled out of 12mm WA shot. There MUST be some post work done to straighten or compensate for the edge distortion inherit. <br>

You know though, what could you expect from 12mm, edge sharpness has to suffer at some point, and the more you have to bend the light, the more it suffers.... I wouldn't ask for perfect at the edges, but I do want to know what I'm looking at ahead of time. Esp. since I'll have to order it.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses! Anybody have any uncropped, minimally posted work they'll share?</p>

<p>Juergen - I forgot to ask... what's the character of the flare? is it defined flare, or does it just turn the image into a hazy mush? And does stopping down help much? How about at say14+ mm (you know for useability? :-) ), does zooming help with corner sharpness?</p>

<p>Uncropped, never been posted (why would I) with flare. Three shots out of many, including some with the sun behind a limb or bamboo trunk.</p><div></div>

<p>And everything bad that you can say about the lens is visible in this image at f6.3 (f4.5 is worse, only the face in the bonzai trunk is sharp). While the depth of field is shallow, there ain't any bokeh to relieve the agony. The lens is what it is. Neither this or the one above were edited in any way other than to resize.</p><div></div>

<p>I made this image while driving using my Sigma 12-24 on my 5D<br /> <a href="../photo/8243626&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/8243626&size=lg</a></p>

<p>Here's another:<br /> <a href="../photo/8209414">http://www.photo.net/photo/8209414</a></p>

<p>more on pbase<br /> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1224_4556_ex_dg_asp_hsm">http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1224_4556_ex_dg_asp_hsm</a></p>

<p>click the "more" link once there.</p>

<p>I think the main issue with this lens is corner sharpness at anything less than f/11. And for me there was a learning curve for how to use it correctly, especially regarding the extreme perspective distortion you get at 12mm. I now tend to use my 17-40 and shoot panos if 17mm isn't wide enough when shooting landscapes. But its hard to beat this lens for architecture and especially indoor architecture.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_12_24_hires">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_12_24_hires</a></p>

It is decent performer. Better in the corners than 16-35/2.8L MK1, by large margin not as sharp in the center. Five star built quality, no problems with flare, as long as source is not too much to the edge of the frame.<div></div>