Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM DG on DX camera

[mvtol]

<p>Im thinking of buying this lens for my D80. I have two DX lenses (Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 50-150) but I'm a bit uncertain buying other DX lenses, because we don't know what Nikon comes up with, say in two years, and if it will be FX or DX. This lens seems to give wide angle on DX and will be a good investment for a possible FX camera later on. Anyone who has experience with DX camera and this FX lens? Also, will the difference between 12mm and 17mm will be worth buying such a lens?<br>

regards, Martijn</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>honestly? unless you really need FX for higher ISO, i'd probably just upgrade to a d90 or d300, as you will have to spend a lot of cash replacing glass just to get a similar setup to what you have now, with little to no increase in IQ. there is no comparable FX equivalent to the 50-150 other than the sigma 70-200, the nikon 70-200 VR, and the nikon 80-200, all of which are more expensive and less handholdable/compact.</p>

<p>personally i'd get the tokina 11-16/2.8 for now. you get 1 extra mm on the wide end and more than a full stop of aperture. its resale value will be pretty close to what you paid for it if and when you do go FX. that slow variable aperture on the sigma is kind of a downside, as is the fact it doesnt take filters. i've never used one but IQ is supposed to be pretty good, and i've heard architectural shooters like it for its rectilinearity.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I have used this lens on my D40. While it works OK, if you really want ultrawide for DX, you need a DX ultrawide lens, Look into the Sigma 10-20mm DX lens and should you go FX in the future, sell it and upgrade.</p>

<p>Actually, with the pending release on Nikon's new DX ultrawide lens, that may be your best choice for now.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The difference between 12mm and 17mm is enormous. So if you need a wide angle of view, you'll really see the difference. As for whether that Sigma 12-24 is the right way to go, over the more DX-specific ultrawides... the Sigma 12-24 can't take front-end filters. Their very nice 10-20mm HSM can. Given the delicateness of the front elements on these guys, I like to keep one on - it just depends on where and how you see yourself shooting. If you don't have a specific expectation that you're going to be using an FX format camera in the next couple of years, I'd just get one of the several DX ultrawides from Nikon, Sigma, or Tokina, and enjoy the more compact build. You'll always be able to sell a well cared-for ultrawide DX lens for a decent price - that format is NOT going away any time soon.</p>

[mvtol]

<p>Thanks all. I'll take a look (again :) at the Tokina 11-16 and the Sigma 10-20. Taking no filters with such a peace of front glass is indeed risky. Elliot, which lens do you mean by <em>Nikon's new DX ultrawide lens</em> .<br>

regards,<br>

Martijn</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Nikon has announced a 10-24DX, available soon. It's expensive. Nobody will know whether it's worth it until a bunch of people have tried it.</p>

[paul heskes]

<p>Hi Martijn<br>

The Sigma 12-24mm will serve you well if you get a good copy. Buy carefully as there appear to be a great many sample variations around, as there is with the 10-20mm Sigma.</p>

<p>I have one and use it with my Nikon digital and film bodies. For me, there is nothing else available in one package that will do the job.</p>

<p>My copy is sharp at f/8 and beyond, acceptable below. You cannot mount front mounted filters, but there is a work around, or you could use one of the larger filter holders. Personally, I've never missed not being able to mount filters on it, as I find the results quite warm and saturated to start with.<br>

Where this lens excels, is in its ability to give very wide, "on film or FF" virtually distortion free images at normal viewing distances and off course, the ability to use it on digital as well as film or FF.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

[sampson]

<p>"the Sigma 12-24 can't take front-end filters."<br>

This is not true.<br>

The 'special' lens cap can accomodate 82mm screw on filters, so you can also use your favorite rectangle filters if you need. the bulbous front element isn't really that delicate, the permanant metal hood does an excellent job protecting the lens (not that I would know this front dropping my lens a few times on the ground ;))<br>

Hard vignetting is actually surprisingly minimal with only a single front end filter, but you'll need at least the Z-Pro series from Cokin for rectangle filters.<br>

Obviously if you get one of the DX lenses, filters will be cheaper.</p>

[sammy_d1]

<p>I have this lens, and I find that it vignettes on a DX camera with the lens cap holder on, even without filters on it. It is built to take rear filters - something I just don't use. It is an excellent lens for doing interiors of buildings because of its minimal distortion. </p>