Sigma 12-24 question

[joe_kallo]

Hello all,

 

I don't do lens tests usually, but I noticed the images from my new Sigma 12-24 were

softer than I'm used to. Would someone who is familiar with the SIgma 12-24 EX and the

current 18-70 DX by Nikon take a look at the attached jpg? I am trying to figure out if the

degree of softness in the Sigma is normal for this lens or if I got a bad one. Info about the

pic: 100% crops taken about 2/3 of the way to the upper right corner of the image. Both

exposed at 18mm, f/8 on a Nikon d70 at 200 iso using a tripod.

 

Thanks all!

Joe<div></div>

[eric friedemann]

The Sigma is nice for a full-frame lens and for the price. However, it doesn't hold up well under significant enlargement. Scroll down to look at Mike Reichman's side-by-side comparison of the Sigma 12-24mm v. the Canon 10-22mm EF-S- and read the update at the bottom of the article:

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

 

 

My feeling is that unless you need full frame capability, get the 12-24mm f/4.0 DX Nikkor. Optically, it is significantly better than the Sigma 12-24mm on a Nikon DSLR.<div></div>

[douglas_greenberg]

I own the Sigma 12-24, so I feel "qualified" to respond. However, for me the photo attachment does not appear. It's frequently pointed out in forums, however, that appraising photo sharpness on the basis of online .jpg's is pretty difficult. If the Sigma is producing images that are so soft that this is easily recognizable on-screen, then perhaps something indeed is amiss. On the other hand, with an ultrawide zoom, there are all kinds of ways that sharpness can falter, even in a top-quality lens. This lens certainly exhibits some curvature across the focus field. This means that at wider apertures (where depth of field is slight) you will almost certainly get some softness along the edges and corners when the central area is in sharp focus. Just a thought.

[joe_kallo]

Douglas (and anyone else having trouble opening the file), please see the picture: <br>

 

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/quietglow/lenses.jpg"> here </a>

 

<br>

I am completely in agreement that doing lens tests with jpgs online is probably not a very

conclusive methodology. In this case, though, I think the differences are pretty darn

obvious, and they appear to me to be very similar to those at the luminous-landscape site

(thanks!). The problem isn't barrel distortion or saturation (which I can work with), but a

much lower resolution.

[douglas_greenberg]

You still might consider focus field curvature as at least part of the problem. Is the difference in sharpness equally noticeable in the center of the frame? My own 12-24 has seemed quite adequately sharp to me. It's always possible that you got a "bad sample." It happens. I had a Sigma 400mm f5.6 Tele-Macro APO that never seemed as good as it was "supposed to." I'm convinced that this lens (long since sold) was just a bit of a lemon.

[joe_kallo]

Its not as bad, but its noticable enough in regular shots to alert me that something was

amiss. My general rule is that I don't go looking for trouble: if the prints look good, the

lens is good. I also meant to point out before that these samples were taken at 18mm so I

could compare the lenses and confirm I wasn't just losing my eyesight. The softness with

the Sigma is more pronounced at 12mm, which is the focal length I really bought this for.

[wilfred_wong]

Can anyone tell me whether the sigma 12-24 can be used on MF bodies? is that a G lens?

[harvey_edelstein1]

Look at the latest Shutterbug issue there are a lot of shots taken with this lens there and this would be better than looking at a Jpeg on a monitor screen.

[ShunCheung]

Take a look at <A HREF="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=302697&is=REG">

this link to B&H's web page on the Sigma 12-24 for Nikon</A>. The image clearly shows that the lens has no aperture ring and the "Features" tab describes it to be just like a Nikon G lens.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Its a G type lens but at least it can be used with film bodies that take G lenses plus Dslrs.

[ShunCheung]

The 12-24mm/f4 DX can also be used on film bodies and can cover the entire film frame from 18-24mm. On a film body, 18mm is already a super wide. At least IMO, there really is no point to go down to 12mm on a film body simply because it is way too wide in real life shooting situations. Therefore, the fact that Sigma's 12-24 can cover the full film frame at 12mm is pretty meaningless anyway, but that is merely my opinion. Your preference may vary.

[wilfred_wong]

Thanks. my friend want to get a sigma 12-24 but his film SLR is FM3A...so he wants to know if he can use that on MF bodies as well. looks like it won't work...

 

my 12-24? i got the nikon one :)

 

I think there's one advantage using 12-24 DX on film over 17-35 / 18-35... at 18mm on the 12-24 DX, there is no distortion.

 

Well, I do agree that 12mm on film is too wide to my taste, but it could be fun to use that.

 

Joe, judge from the 100% crop, i think it's really soft compare to 18-70, and since it's a FF lens, the corners on DSLR ain't really corners on film. I'd return it and try another sample.

[wayne_willis2]

i had no issues with the sigma 12-24mm on Fuji S2 pro but had plenty with a Nikon 12-24mm F4. The Nikon had soft spots about a third off centre and poor flare control. The sigma was a little soft at the edges but not much, it had great flare control compared to my Nikon. Does this mean all sigmas are better than Nikon's? OF COURSE NOT its just means I got a bad sample of a Nikon and a great sample of the sigma.

I would have bought a sigma again after it was stolen but I got a great deal on a Minolta &d and Minolta 11-18mm.

Just check my folder here

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=421241

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=506346