Sigma 12-24mm F/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II

russellsnr

russellsnr

Messages
3,277
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
Does anyone use or used the Sigma 12-24mm F/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II as I am in the market for a new lens for both internal and also landscapes. I note that although it only has F4.5 it will fit both FF and crop bodies and this is a plus for me as I have both FF and a crop body, I have the 17-40mm but 1.6 X 17mm approx 27mm takes it a little wide on the crop for interior shots. Thanks in advance Russ
 
Yup, I've had one for years and after my 24-70, it's probably my most used lens. I've used it for interiors (stand with your back in a corner [in landscape format] and [on FF] you'll get the walls you're leaning against in the shot! Landscapes with it (and indeed any UWA) take a bit more compositional thought than longer lenses but can be extremely effective. If possible (and I'm not sure it will be on Rhodes), try the actual lens you'll be buying - Sigma's QC has been known to be patchy, although I understand this issue has been reduced especially on their EX range.

On the plus side, it's extremely well corrected for barrel distortion - there is virtually none, even at 12mm and a good copy is as sharp as you like. The only negative (for filter users) is that it doesn't accept front mounted filters, so if you're a grad or pol user, you're out of luck! (It's way too wide for pols - they give weird effects on the sky due to the vagaries of polarised light!) Plain NDs and other coloured filters need to be gels cut using the template provided and slipped into the holder behind the rear element.
 
Nod said:
Yup, I've had one for years and after my 24-70, it's probably my most used lens. I've used it for interiors (stand with your back in a corner [in landscape format] and [on FF] you'll get the walls you're leaning against in the shot! Landscapes with it (and indeed any UWA) take a bit more compositional thought than longer lenses but can be extremely effective. If possible (and I'm not sure it will be on Rhodes), try the actual lens you'll be buying - Sigma's QC has been known to be patchy, although I understand this issue has been reduced especially on their EX range.

On the plus side, it's extremely well corrected for barrel distortion - there is virtually none, even at 12mm and a good copy is as sharp as you like. The only negative (for filter users) is that it doesn't accept front mounted filters, so if you're a grad or pol user, you're out of luck! (It's way too wide for pols - they give weird effects on the sky due to the vagaries of polarised light!) Plain NDs and other coloured filters need to be gels cut using the template provided and slipped into the holder behind the rear element.
Click to expand...

Hi, Many thanks for the reply, I have been looking on the net for feedback on this lens and 99% seems very favorable. On the question of filters have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0s2Q_JlPcE&feature=youtu.be to see how you can use some filters on this lens.
Thanks again
Russ
 
Last edited:
I looked at this lens a while back, figured I didn't really need it in the end. But, it's still on the maybe list.

It may only go as wide as 4.5, but in that range you can get away with pretty slow shutter speeds without having to worry about shake. Lenses in that focal region certainly don't need VR. Even at 24mm, f/5.6, you should be fine to shoot at 1/30 - which is as good as longer lenses at 2.8
 
Nod said:
The only negative (for filter users) is that it doesn't accept front mounted filters, so if you're a grad or pol user, you're out of luck!
Click to expand...

As you should know it does accept filters... after a fashion.

The 12-24mm has a built in metal lens hood and also has a bucket type lens cap. If you remove just the cap and leave the bucket in place is it possible to fit filters or a Lee/Cokin/Whatever filter holder system.

The next questions will include will it vignette at the focal length I want (you may get away with it at the longer focal lengths) and is it usable with the filter I want to use...

Anyway, just to prove it is at least possible to try and use a filter here's a picture of mine with a Cokin holder fitted.

IMG_3082-01_zpsc1b020ef.jpg


I used this lens on my 20D and I was very happy with it. It simply thrashed my previous Canon 10-22mm. On my current 5D it's a very different beast... :lol:
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
As you should know it does accept filters... after a fashion.

The 12-24mm has a built in metal lens hood and also has a bucket type lens cap. If you remove just the cap and leave the bucket in place is it possible to fit filters or a Lee/Cokin/Whatever filter holder system.

The next questions will include will it vignette at the focal length I want (you may get away with it at the longer focal lengths) and is it usable with the filter I want to use...

Anyway, just to prove it is at least possible to try and use a filter here's a picture of mine with a Cokin holder fitted.

IMG_3082-01_zpsc1b020ef.jpg


I used this lens on my 20D and I was very happy with it. It simply thrashed my previous Canon 10-22mm. On my current 5D it's a very different beast... :lol:
Click to expand...

Hi, Thank you for the reply.
Could you please put up the photo with the filter adapter attached as I use LEE filters and thought on just hand holding them.
Russ
 
russellsnr said:
Hi, Thank you for the reply.
Could you please put up the photo with the filter adapter attached as I use LEE filters and thought on just hand holding them.
Russ
Click to expand...

my guess is that it will vignette spectacularly at anything less than 24mm. It is too far away and gives too narrow angle of view

Why not get a Samyang 14mm to supplement 17-40? It won't do filters either but will cost a fraction. I can't imagine 12mm being that useful on FF anyway.
 
daugirdas said:
my guess is that it will vignette spectacularly at anything less than 24mm. It is too far away and gives too narrow angle of view

Why not get a Samyang 14mm to supplement 17-40? It won't do filters either but will cost a fraction. I can't imagine 12mm being that useful on FF anyway.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my short lived experience of using filters on this lens. Was on full frame but I don't think things would be much better on a cropper.

Would probably dispute the second bit though. 12mm definitely has it's uses for interiors but perhaps less so outdoors. Nice to have the option though.
 
Last edited:
russellsnr said:
Hi, Thank you for the reply.
Could you please put up the photo with the filter adapter attached as I use LEE filters and thought on just hand holding them.
Russ
Click to expand...

The filter adapter is attached... it's a Cokin holder :D
 
daugirdas said:
Why not get a Samyang 14mm to supplement 17-40? It won't do filters either but will cost a fraction. I can't imagine 12mm being that useful on FF anyway.
Click to expand...

The Samyang isn't AF and it isn't 12mm. 12mm is pretty wide on FF :D but if you do want 12mm then 14mm isn't it either on APS-C or FF and neither is it AF.
 
gad-westy said:
Would probably dispute the second bit though. 12mm definitely has it's uses for interiors but perhaps less so outdoors. Nice to have the option though.
Click to expand...

I guess it is an interesting option to have, but if it is very useful for most I will dispute that. One rental agency I do some work for have clearly told us 17-40mm is the widest they want to see, although some slightly cropped 14mm shots seems to get past their scrutiny.
I intend to use my 14/2.8 for starscapes and aurora once I get a chance, but for that use f/2.8 is really needed with the current best dSLRs

AF for 14mm? Really, why?
 
daugirdas said:
I guess it is an interesting option to have, but if it is very useful for most I will dispute that. One rental agency I do some work for have clearly told us 17-40mm is the widest they want to see, although some slightly cropped 14mm shots seems to get past their scrutiny.
I intend to use my 14/2.8 for starscapes and aurora once I get a chance, but for that use f/2.8 is really needed with the current best dSLRs

AF for 14mm? Really, why?
Click to expand...

Hi, If 17-40mm is the width that agencies prefer then will the Sigma 12-24mm not give that on a crop sensor (well 19mm approx) no idea what the lens may do at the wide end as far as quality is concerned.
The one BIG thing that is drawing me towards this lens is the fact that I have both FF and Crop cameras
Thanks for the reply
Russ
 
A cheaper option for FF and APS-C is the older Canon 20-35mm USM. I used one on my 20D + 35mm SLR and in fact I still use it on my 5D. Some report excessive distortion but I'm happy enough. Another budget option that has a loyal following is the Cosina/Tamron/Whoever puts a badge on it - 19-35mm.

These two aren't as wide (obviously...) on APS-C.
 
russellsnr said:
Hi, Thank you for the reply.
Could you please put up the photo with the filter adapter attached as I use LEE filters and thought on just hand holding them.
Russ
Click to expand...

The Lee 165mm system is I believe only suited for the Nikon 14-24mm lens.

However theres Hitech system(albeit not a cheap one) that has adaptor rings for several other UWA's without filter threads including the Sigma 12-24mm

http://www.formatt.co.uk/stills-filters/hitech-165mm-hardware/products.aspx

Only possible problem I see is that it doesnt say whether its a mk 1 or mk 2 Sigma so I'd try to find that out first.
 
I bought a 12-24 for my 5d2 (second hand) and was bitterly disappointed with it. I've had a number of Sigma lenses and they had all been good to that point, but this one was terribly soft and colour/contrast rendition was poor. I had a Sigma 10-20 on a crop set up which I enjoyed using and missed the UWA option for particular applications and had come to the conclusion that a Canon 17-40 would be the best sensibly priced option, but a bit hard to justify for how often I'd use it.

However, I have just picked up a Sigma EX 15-30 mm f3.5-4.5 from the classifieds here, and I'm absolutely delighted with it. It's sharp, plenty wide on FF and at 15mm the distortion is a fair bit better than it was at 12mm on the other lens. I saw one on eBay that said it wasn't compatible with FF, but it absolutely is.
 
woof woof said:
As you should know it does accept filters... after a fashion.

The 12-24mm has a built in metal lens hood and also has a bucket type lens cap. If you remove just the cap and leave the bucket in place is it possible to fit filters or a Lee/Cokin/Whatever filter holder system.

The next questions will include will it vignette at the focal length I want (you may get away with it at the longer focal lengths) and is it usable with the filter I want to use...

Anyway, just to prove it is at least possible to try and use a filter here's a picture of mine with a Cokin holder fitted.

IMG_3082-01_zpsc1b020ef.jpg


I used this lens on my 20D and I was very happy with it. It simply thrashed my previous Canon 10-22mm. On my current 5D it's a very different beast... :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes, you can use Screw-In filters in the hood insert but even at 16mm on a crop (Nikon), it vignettes. Not horrendously but it does vignette... (Interestingly, this shot also shows that a pol only removes the non-metallic reflections from car paintwork!)
JagHOPol.jpg

Again at 16mm, this time with a polariser showing the effect on the sky - the JPEG artefaction has been deliberately emphasized (by saving at JPEG quality 0 in PSE) to emphasize the banding caused by uneven polarisation. This shot again shows the vignetting.
SkyBandPol2.jpg



woof woof said:
A cheaper option for FF and APS-C is the older Canon 20-35mm USM. I used one on my 20D + 35mm SLR and in fact I still use it on my 5D. Some report excessive distortion but I'm happy enough. Another budget option that has a loyal following is the Cosina/Tamron/Whoever puts a badge on it - 19-35mm.

These two aren't as wide (obviously...) on APS-C.
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference in width between 12mm and 20mm! If you don't want or need the extra width, the 19-35 Cosronitar is a good budget alternative but it does distort a lot.
 
Shine On said:
I bought a 12-24 for my 5d2 (second hand) and was bitterly disappointed with it. I've had a number of Sigma lenses and they had all been good to that point, but this one was terribly soft and colour/contrast rendition was poor. I had a Sigma 10-20 on a crop set up which I enjoyed using and missed the UWA option for particular applications and had come to the conclusion that a Canon 17-40 would be the best sensibly priced option, but a bit hard to justify for how often I'd use it.

However, I have just picked up a Sigma EX 15-30 mm f3.5-4.5 from the classifieds here, and I'm absolutely delighted with it. It's sharp, plenty wide on FF and at 15mm the distortion is a fair bit better than it was at 12mm on the other lens. I saw one on eBay that said it wasn't compatible with FF, but it absolutely is.
Click to expand...

That sigma lens is specifically a full frame lens, DG denotes full frame as well as crop, but the only lenses specifically for crop cameras are DC lenses
 
Shine On said:
I bought a 12-24 for my 5d2 (second hand) and was bitterly disappointed with it. I've had a number of Sigma lenses and they had all been good to that point, but this one was terribly soft and colour/contrast rendition was poor. I had a Sigma 10-20 on a crop set up which I enjoyed using and missed the UWA option for particular applications and had come to the conclusion that a Canon 17-40 would be the best sensibly priced option, but a bit hard to justify for how often I'd use it.

However, I have just picked up a Sigma EX 15-30 mm f3.5-4.5 from the classifieds here, and I'm absolutely delighted with it. It's sharp, plenty wide on FF and at 15mm the distortion is a fair bit better than it was at 12mm on the other lens. I saw one on eBay that said it wasn't compatible with FF, but it absolutely is.
Click to expand...

Shame you ended up with a bad copy. Maybe I've been lucky but all my Sigmas have been good copies - but I've always made sure I've tested them before paying (apart from one which was brand new, unopened but a few years old!)

Which lens was distorting at 12mm? You mention both the 12-24 and the 10-20. The 12-24 is incredibly well corrected in terms of rectilinear distortion - the exagerated perspective effects are a fact of physics and will be greater at 12mm than at 15mm.
 
Shine On said:
I bought a 12-24 for my 5d2 (second hand) and was bitterly disappointed with it. I've had a number of Sigma lenses and they had all been good to that point, but this one was terribly soft and colour/contrast rendition was poor. I had a Sigma 10-20 on a crop set up which I enjoyed using and missed the UWA option for particular applications and had come to the conclusion that a Canon 17-40 would be the best sensibly priced option, but a bit hard to justify for how often I'd use it.

However, I have just picked up a Sigma EX 15-30 mm f3.5-4.5 from the classifieds here, and I'm absolutely delighted with it. It's sharp, plenty wide on FF and at 15mm the distortion is a fair bit better than it was at 12mm on the other lens. I saw one on eBay that said it wasn't compatible with FF, but it absolutely is.
Click to expand...

My expereince on a D800 with borrowing a mk 1 was that it was pretty sharp across 2/3rds of the frame but very poor at the boarders towards the wide end. The Mk 2 does seem to have improved a bit and a 1Ds mk2 would be less demanding when it comes to resolution.
 
Nod, I appreciate that it will distort more at 12mm, and I am referring to the perspective more than anything else, but having not seen 12mm on a FF camera before it was more than I was prepared to deal with. I was referring to the 12-24, it was a Mk 1 lens. Very disappointed in it, but a friend with a Nikon fitment version of the same had a much better copy, much sharper. As I said, I've owned numerous Sigma lenses, that was the only one I'd consider a 'wrong un'. The centre was just about ok, go more than a third out in any direction and the image was unbearably soft. Just one of those things.
 
Paul, as I said, the exagerated perspective isn't distortion, it's a fact of physics and "ye cannae beat the laws o' Physics"! Unfortunately, poor copies of Sigma lenses exist and it sounds like you got one. Mine's Nikon fit and since I bought it as soon as I became aware of their existence, it's probably a Mk. 1.
 
Nod said:
Paul, as I said, the exagerated perspective isn't distortion, it's a fact of physics and "ye cannae beat the laws o' Physics"! Unfortunately, poor copies of Sigma lenses exist and it sounds like you got one. Mine's Nikon fit and since I bought it as soon as I became aware of their existence, it's probably a Mk. 1.
Click to expand...

Its a bit of both, angle of view will naturally effect perspective but with an UWA lens you'll always get(at least on ever lens I'v used) distortion towards the edges of the frame aswell.

Thats why I'd guess theres still a market for swing lens film cameras for street photography.
 
Hi, Thank you for ALL the input on the question. Very much appreciated.
Russ
 
Moreorless, if you get a chance, have a play with a Sigma 12-24, it's incredibly well corrected as far as rectilinear distortions go! This photo probably shows it best (at least, of the ones I have on hosting sites!), the perspective is fairly extreme and the viewpoint is too low but the walls are all straight, as is the line of the roof! It was shot at 12mm.

8026091040_9d4cc69474_b.jpg
 
Nod said:
Moreorless, if you get a chance, have a play with a Sigma 12-24, it's incredibly well corrected as far as rectilinear distortions go! This photo probably shows it best (at least, of the ones I have on hosting sites!), the perspective is fairly extreme and the viewpoint is too low but the walls are all straight, as is the line of the roof! It was shot at 12mm.

8026091040_9d4cc69474_b.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm actually barrowing the mk 1 at the moment, the distortion in terms of the barrel/pincusion is very good considering how wide it is. The distortion I was talking about though is the "stretching" towards the edges of the frame you can see on those cobbles and the buildings at either side.

For landscape I don't find that much of an issue but for people or architecture it tends to stand out for me. As I said though I don't know of any non fisheye lens that doesnt have this kind of distortion hence there are still street togs buying swing lens cameras that don't suffer from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top