Sigma 12-24mm

[jeff_loughlin1]

<p>Anybody have experience with this lens? I'm looking to add an ultra wide to my kit and this looks like a bargain, especially considering it goes to 12mm with a full FX image circle. I keep hearing about a I and II version of this lens - what's the difference between the two versions, and is it worth it to pay more for the II version?</p>

<p>Thanks for any insight.<br>

Jeff</p>

<p> </p>

[h._p.]

<p>It will depend, I think, on your standards. I used to own the 17~35 Sigma and now own the 10~20. I would describe neither as a top quality lens. The 12~24 may be a far better performer but I would definitely advise getting it with the right to return, in order to see if it meets your needs.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>I have, and use regularly, the Sigma 12-24mm lens. I bought it because of its low distortion and because if was full frame. It is a superb piece of glass. I don't know what version I have but I am totally happy with it and wouldn't hesitate to buy it again if this one broke. I used to have the Sigma 10-20mm lens but didn't like the distortion.</p><div></div>

[mark_drutz]

<p>B&H has the Sigma 12-24 for $949. They have the Nikon 12-24 for $1,099 new and $769 refurbished. I suggest getting one of the Nikons.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mark - the Nikkor is a DX lens. the Sigma is an FX lens. I'm assuming that Jeff is considering it for an FX camera (otherwise it may well not be the obvious choice).<br />

<br />

I've briefly played with one in a shop. The dark aperture is a bit of an issue indoors, but not critical, especially if you've got a decent finder. Otherwise I've mostly heard good things, but can't vouch from experience (I got the 14-24). You might find <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html">this review</a> (primarily of the 14-24, but compared with the Sigma), and others on the same site, to be of interest.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Andrew, thank you, I didn't know that.</p>

[jeff_loughlin1]

<p>Thanks for the responses, all. It is to be mounted on a D700, so the Nikkor 12-24 isn't an option. The 12mm end is what I'm most interested in, and I would lose that in the DX lens.</p>

<p>I can't seem to find anything that compares the I and II versions side by side - some reviews mention briefly that the II version is better at controlling CA, others say not so much. The old I version is available on ebay for around $550 used; I can't find the II version used anywhere, so a new one is about $400 more. I was hoping to find a side-by-side comparison with test images to help me decide if that $400 is worth it. I guess I'll probably pick up one of the used I versions on ebay, and I can always resell it if it doesn't measure up to my standards.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help.<br>

Jeff</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>I have both versions. The remarkable thing about version I is that it has very little distortion, even at its widest setting. It's pretty sharp, but the corners can be a little soft unless it's stopped down; I typically shoot it at f/8 or f/11 for maximum sharpness. Wide open the corners are mushy and there's vignetting, though I occasionally kind of like the effect.<br>

Version II is sharper in the corners, but has quite a bit of barrel distortion. So it's not the best when there are straight lines in the frame; for landscapes the distortion usually isn't noticeable, though horizon lines can come out bowed. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/676-sigma1224f4556iiff">Here</a> is a review of version II on photozone.<br>

One more thing to consider: the first version takes rear gel filters. For the life of me, I can't figure out how to use them with version II; there doesn't seem to be a slot for them. Does anyone here know if I am missing something obvious?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Jonathan, why on earth would you need to use gel filters with a digital camera? Most filters can be simulated in afterwork or simply by selecting the appropriate WB setting. The only ones you can't simulate - polarizer, grads & deep NDs - aren't available as gels anyway.</p>

[jonsjons]

<p>Actually, lately I've found myself using neutral density filters quite often. Useful for long exposure shots at the ocean....</p>

[sammy_d1]

<p>I have had the version I since it came out, and use it now with a D3 (FX). I liked it so well, that I bought the DX version 8-16mm to go with my DX cameras. there is NOTHING in anyone else's lineup that goes this wide. The difference between 14mm and 12mm is huge. The lens is rectilinear, and pictures from it take to sharpening very well without looking overly sharpened. Decide for yourself about each of your lenses, and don't just fall into the "Get the Nikon" mindset. I have a full stable of Nikons, and I like them very much. But, I also have some Sigmas and Tokinas that are great lenses. </p>