Some doubts about Sigma 12-24mm f/4,5-5,6 DG EX

[gmorais1]

<p>Hello! I have a 350D body with the common 18-55mm lense and an

all-round EF 28-135mm IS USM. My doubts are about getting the Sigma

12-24mm f/4,5-5,6 DG EX.<p />

 

<p>

My first doubt is about how good it is. I always heard that

third-party lenses are not so good as a genuine Canon lense. Can you

recomend a similar lense from Canon?<p />

 

<p>

Second is about compatibilty. Someday (not in a near future) I will

pretend to upgrade my body to a full size sensor. I notice that in the

past there were some problems of campatibility with old lenses of

Sigma with newer bodies of Canon. Is this problem real? Thanks in

advance, Gon硬o.

[byronlawrence]

for compatibility. I believe that lens is fairly newish in design. at the camera store they have one mounted on the canon 5d.. it works fine there. if in the future it has issues, I have read plenty of times that sigma would be more than happy to rechip the lens,, if it is necessary.

 

I have no idea about how 'good' the lens it, but it does take work.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Second is about compatibilty. Someday (not in a near future) I will pretend to upgrade

my body to a full size sensor. I notice that in the past there were some problems of

campatibility with old lenses of Sigma with newer bodies of Canon. Is this problem real?

Thanks in advance </i><P>

 

The only similarly wide Canon zoom lens, at the moment, is the 10-22 mm EF-S. That will

<B>not</b> (repeat: <B><i>NOT)</B></i> work on a full-frame sensor without

terrible vignetting. In fact, it may not even mount on anything but a 20D or 300D or

350D. Right now, if you want a very wide field of view on a FF sensor, the

Sigma 12-24 is the only game in town. However, if you want the field of view on a FF

sensor that you'd get from the Sigma 12-24 on a 350D, then the Canon 17-40 or 16-35

will be pretty similar. Unfortunately, on a 350D, the 17-40 is about equal to a 27-64 mm

(not very wide).<P>

 

I have the Canon 17-40 and the Sigma 12-24, which I use with a 10D (1.6X crop factor)

and a 1DII (1.3X crop factor). They are both very good lenses, although I

like the color rendition a little better with the Canon. You have no guarantee that the

Sigma 12-24 will work on future Canon bodies, although I believe their troubles in that

respect seem to be a thing of the past. If a lens is still in production, my understanding is

that Sigma will re-chip it to keep up with current bodies. Also, keep in mind that you can't

use front-mounted filters with the Sigma.<P>

[wildpicture]

Mark, do you have any samples of the 12-24 on your 1DII? I am thinking about this lens for my 1DII too, as I already have the 17-40 and want something in the 17mm range again. 17mm x 1.3x is just not enough.

 

There is losts of info on the 12-24 on all kinds of cameras but hardly anything on how it works together with the 1DII. What are your experiences, both in optical results as in useability?

 

Regards,

Hans

[mark_chappell]

<I>There is losts of info on the 12-24 on all kinds of cameras but hardly anything on how

it works together with the 1DII. What are your experiences, both in optical results as in

useability?</i><P>

 

Hi, Hans. My experience with the Sigma 12-24 on the 1DII has been quite positive. I

have not done extensive pixel-peeping, but in the course of dust-spot removal from

images I've looked in the corners and haven't noticed any obvious problems. Also, I

almost never use it wide open so I can't say much about image quality in that condition.

It's not very fast (not a problem for daylight landscapes) and will flare if the sun hits the

big bulging front element, as will any superwide lens. Focus is fast and quiet and

although it's very bulky, it isn't as heavy as it looks. Considerably less barrel distortion

than with the 17-40, surprisingly.<P>

 

There have been reports of sample variation with this lens so be sure to check yours out

as soon as you get it (and be sure to purchase from a store with a good return policy).

When I received mine, I

immediately photographed a brick wall across the range of focal lengths and found optical

quality quite

satisfactory (not dramatically different from the 17-40). <P>

 

Email me privately (chappell@ucr.edu) and I can send some large (but not full-sized) JPEGs

that I use as screen savers.

[andre_reinders]

my 2 cents

 

I have a co-worker with a 20D, he has a 12-24 sigma, and had stated no issues with it. We went out shooting together and I threw it on my Elan 7N, no issues.

 

As for a reveiw - I only used it for an hour or so...I don't believe I have anything to say that has not already been said. Seemed like a nice lens to me.

[lee_carruthers]

I had one for a year and it did the job on my 10/20Ds. I also used it on my 1Ds but it's pretty wild and the corners aren't great. It is also very large and heavy. I sold it last summer because I found I rarely used it since getting a full-frame camera.

 

I had two issues you might want to contemplate: the colour rendition was not appealing and I took a big losss selling it. I was surprised at how poorly the Sigma held its value compared with Canon lenses.

[carlos_santos2]

Sigma EX are third-party but very high-quality lenses, on par with Tamron XR Di's. I personally prefer them over Tamrons for their build quality (the image quality between the Tamron and Sigmas are usually almost neck and neck, and in a couple models from either Sigma or Tamron the third parties match or exceed the L Canon lenses (e.g. the Sigma 24-70 EX Macro)).

 

I've had the 12-24 since it's introduction in late '03 and it's been great, if you can get one and test it you should try it out.

 

I find mine to be almost like a prime in quality. Some posters bitch and moan about it, but many times the errors can be traced to focusing errors or lack of familiarity with testing a lens of this type at the widest angle, wide open (the DOF can be a bit tricky and/or "curved" when shooting at 12mm wide open! So much is in view that wide-open it takes some care to make sure you don't grab stuff at the edges that is much closer than the center focus point for example.)

 

It's a bit frustrating in that a lot of posters which are so heavily biased against third-party lenses seem to have very strong pre-existing bias towards third-party lenses, and in reality they aren't familiar with the products much less have given them a through evaluation. It's somewhat like a friend who insists Mercedes Benz's are the best autos and looks down on the best from Honda and Japan. That thinking was perhpas true in the 60's, but things have changed drastically since then, and those who insist otherwise end up being the suckers for it at the end.

 

The best bet in the end should be to test it out for yourself and see if the images satisfy your photog requirements.

[mark u]

I think the only thing you really have to watch out for is sample variation - which is a risk with lenses from all manufacturers. Users who get a good copy seem to be very happy with this lens. Here's a report from a contributor to Luminous Landscape:

 

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=372966&page=0&fpart=all&vc=1

 

Maybe Michael Reichmann should allow him to re-run the comparison with the Canon 10-22, since MR obviously got a bad copy of the 12-24 and didn't bother trying to exchange it.

[alexdi]

I tried one of these in the camera store yesterday. A few thoughts:

 

- It's physically wide, but also short and surprisingly light. Perhaps for the lack of heft, the whole piece felt slightly cheap to me. Interestingly, so did the 17-85/IS; my old 28-80 MK1 actually felt a bit sturdier.

 

- Quality's surprisingly decent wide open at 12mm on my 300D, and that's the worst place for this lens. At f/8 on my test frame, the border extremes are no less sharp than the center. I'd like to post a test frame, but the shop interior was about the most non-optimal lens testing place on earth.

 

- 12mm on a full-frame is just trippy. Try not to get your feet in the picture. I have no idea how it does around the edges though.

 

The Tamron 12-24/4 is a better lens for crop bodies, and it's about half the price of the Canon model. You should have no trouble selling it later if you do decide to upgrade.

 

DI

[yakim_peled1]

I'd avoid any Sigma lens if possible.

 

1. There were a lot of incompatibility problems in the past and I'm afraid they might return someday.

 

2. I read a lot of people complaining a sample variation with third party lenses and especially with Sigma lenses. It also happen with Canon but to a much lesser extent.

 

3. Third party lenses lose a lot of value as used.

 

At present, Sigma lenses do not look cheap enough to me to lure me to buy any of them. I am getting the 350D and the 10-22 USM. When I upgrade to a FF body I might keep it as a second body (in which case the lens stays) or simply sell it. No big deal.

 

Before anyone jumps at me I'd like to state that the above is only my opinions and observations. As always, YMMV.

 

HTH.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[carlos_santos2]

LOL, Yakim I love you to death (really I do), but you're at the top of the list I mention, have you even used a Sigma lens before?

 

Sigh...