Sigma 12-24mm f4-5.6 EX DG

Spiritflier

Spiritflier

Messages
2,803
Name
Simon (Prefer 'Si')
Edit My Images
No
Evenin' all,

Now that I've switched to the 5DMKII, my EF-S 10-22 is nearly redundant (apart from on the 40D)... I'm tempted to swap it for an EF 17-40L (I've owned one before) but I'd like some real-world opinions about the Sigma 12-24 from people who've actually owned one.

I've heard all sorts of mixed reviews about them ranging from terrible to brilliant... The most prevalent comment seems to be regarding the relative sharpness of images from this lens so some feedback on that particular issue would be welcome.

This lens would obviously give me a UWA capability for both cameras - albeit losing 2mm on the 40D so it's something I'm considering quite seriously. :)

Thanks in advance,
Si
 
I have one and it's my most used zoom.

There's little if any distortion and all in all it's a great lens and easily (IMVHO) better than the Canon 10-22mm I previously owned.

I suppose that the only drawback with this lens it that with the bucket in place any filters will cause vignetting at wider settings but on the positive side the lens comes with a case and HSM and will be great on an APS-C (like mine) and very wide on a full frame like yours (or my film SLR.) It seems to be sharp enough too.

I have no issues with the lens at all and would happily recommend it.
 
Spiritflier said:
I've heard all sorts of mixed reviews about them ranging from terrible to brilliant...
Click to expand...

I think you sum up the whole process of buying a Sigma in this one sentence :D

I'd imagine the people who are very happy are the ones that chose one carefully! I think it was EdBray on here who did a bit of a write up, some great shots inside a cathedral I think? But I've also heard people being less than happy.

Chose wisely, and you should be fine. Buy any old one, and you could be in for more hassle.

Chris
 
Hi,

Thanks for the reply... At least I know what to expect with it on my 40D now. :)

I'd also be interested to hear from anyone who's used the Sigma on a full frame. 12mm looks like it could be really good fun to use in certain circumstances and the 12-24 range sits nicely underneath my 24-105mm.

If the positive remarks keep coming, I reckon my 10-22 will be on sale later this evening! ;)

Si
 
I use a 12-24mm on a full frame, and it's great to use, but very much a specialist type lens, you have to careful you don't have one foot in front of another or it will be in frame.

On a FF it's wiiiiiiiiide, so you need to be careful with your verticals/horizontals as they can easily be distorted.

IQ is very good, biggest problem is that you can't use filters.
 
I've looked through my Sigma 12-24mm on my 35mm SLR and it is very wide. I've not shot any film with it though as use a 20-35mm on my SLR.
 
EdBray said:
Sigma 12-24 EX DG on 5DMk2

Wish I'd not got rid of mine!
Click to expand...

Thanks Ed... At least I've got some idea about what to look for now. Those images seem pretty sharp (I know it's tricky to judge with 800px images though). :)

daugirdas said:
Why can't 10-22 stay on 40D? Filters are pretty big deal for landscapes. I suspect 17-40mm may have too much distortion at the wide end on FF. 24-70mm is bad enough at 24mm for seascapes.
Click to expand...

Hi,

The 10-22 could stay on the 40D but I've not got anything at the ultra-wide end for the 5DII and I can't really justify spending another £450-500 on another lens - my wonderful long-suffering girlfriend would kill me if I did! ;)

The filter issue is bothering me a little... If I get the 12-24 as opposed to the 17-40, I'll lose the ability to use my 10-stop ND and I have a great deal of fun with that thing. I've owned a 17-40 before on my old 5DMKI and whilst I agree that the barrel distortion was quite pronounced, it was correctable to some extent.

At the moment, I'll continue to gather some research and see what happens.

Thanks for the advice so far,
Si
 
You could also put EF mount on 10-22. EdBray has tried it and could tell you more.

If you noticed I use Tokina 12-24mm DX and that works quite well on FF from 18mm+. The sharpness is unbelievable from corner to corner and there is hardly any distortion at all - something I couldn't say about it on 40D at 12mm!
 
Hi, I should be taking delivery of one of these on Friday, so I'll give a bit of a lowdown on it then.

AFAIK, you can get ND gel filters to slot in the rear, so that won't be an issue; the thing I'm not looking forward to is not having a CP filter, but it's something I can live with by just altering the metering in the shot and a little PP if needed.
 
daugirdas said:
You could also put EF mount on 10-22. EdBray has tried it and could tell you more.
If you noticed I use Tokina 12-24mm DX and that works quite well on FF from 18mm+. The sharpness is unbelievable from corner to corner and there is hardly any distortion at all - something I couldn't say about it on 40D at 12mm!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it won't work on FF cameras, the mirror hits the rear element. I did the mod of my 10-22 to use it on my 1DMk3.
 
Using a polariser is not a good idea on such an ultra wide angle lens as the amount of polarisation will vary across such a wide expanse of sky!
 
EdBray said:
Using a polariser is not a good idea on such an ultra wide angle lens as the amount of polarisation will vary across such a wide expanse of sky!
Click to expand...

I know, I know... but it'd be great just to be able to for the psychedelic effect! Kind of like when you use a CP when shooting out of an airplane window - that's really cool! :)
 
last year when Jessops were selling off their Sigma lenses I picked up a 12-24, unfortunately the copy I got was not a good one (it ws soft on one side which is a issue to look for), but in the breif time I had it it was clear how much fun it could be. I currently use a 17-40 but would definitely swap it to the 12-24 if I could get me hands on a good copy.
 
Every time I read about dodgy Sigma lenses I realise how lucky I am to have bought 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8, 12-24mm and even a 28-300mm and got optically good / great lenses every time.

If I did buy a dodgy Sigma and had any worries about getting multiple bad copies I'd return the dodgy one for calibration / repair.

They make some great lenses and anyone not having my apparent unique luck in always getting a good one should persist until they do. :)
 
I have to say that I love my 12-24. VERY wide on FF and wide enough on Dx (1.5x crop). Probably worth buying from bricks'n'mortar rather than the cheapest place on the internet, just in case you get an iffy one that needs replacing.

Very little distortion, although there are "interesting" perspective effects when tilted up or down. Filters are slotted in behinmd the rear element - there should be a template in the box. Not a lot of help for grads or pols but (as said above) pols on UWAs give uneven effects, especially on skies. Grads can be bodged on the hood using blu-tak or similar.
 
Hi all,

Thanks for taking the time to reply... I'm leaning back towards the 17-40mm L again at the moment mainly because I think I'd miss not being able to use my filters on the Sigma.

I'm going to see if I can get down to a shop somewhere that has the Sigma in stock so I can at least try it for myself.

Failing that, I'll have to take two bodies out with me and use the 40D and 10-22 for UWA stuff. :)

Si
 
I got a cheapo Sigma 12-24mm off eBay a while ago and it impressed me. Compared to my Nikon 12-24mm DX, the corners weren't as good but centrally it was just as sharp and had practically no distortion.

I'm not sure about sample variation with the Sigma, but with such a wide lens and small aperture I don't think focusing issues would be a problem with it. Also if you do buy new then Sigma will try to fix any issues with the lens for free.

Edit: I just checked and they seem to be selling for £700 new?! I think I paid £200 2nd hand a few years back...
 
I use mine on my 1DsMkII & 50D are think its a cracking lens and works well on either camera. Yes it is so wide filters on the FF can under 15mm can be un-usualable but that can either be considered same as any other very wide lens on a FF or 35mm camera, however there is a work around to help this problem, but not for the faint harded. This is the only none L-Series lens in my stable now & would not consider changing it for an other lens as the quality difference would not be noticable.

This lens distortion problems (due to very wide angle) in the verticals on buildings is easily fixed with PTLens software.
 
Right, just had mine delivered today and I've been playing with it... erm... wow is pretty much what I've been thinking all along. Like has been said above, distortion is minimal, even at 12mm, and it's lovely and sharp down the middle.

You do get vignetting below f8 when wide, but this can solved to an extent by upping your ISO, which is obviously fine given the great ISO on the 5D Mk2. Or you can just go up to f11, but you'll need a tripod.

I'm thinking that's the key to getting most out of this lens, small aperture, acceptable ISO and a tripod.

I suspect if there was some kind of 12-24L made by Canon, they couldn't really improve on this. Mifsuds do have another one in stock, and it's the cheapest out there (second hand - but in as good as new condition if it's anything like mine).
 
Spiritflier said:
Hi all,

Thanks for taking the time to reply... I'm leaning back towards the 17-40mm L again at the moment mainly because I think I'd miss not being able to use my filters on the Sigma.

I'm going to see if I can get down to a shop somewhere that has the Sigma in stock so I can at least try it for myself.
Click to expand...

If you want extreme rectilinear wide-angle, the Sigma's the way to go.

However if you're prepared to compromise, the Canon 17-40mm L is a good choice:
  • L quality - less likely to get a dud copy
  • More useable zoom range
  • Takes front filters (77mm)
I got the 17-40mm to take on holiday last year.. the 17mm end is pretty wild on full-frame, but I soon got bored with it. Unlike a 'regular' wide angle (e.g. 24mm) it's not really an accurate representation of the scene - anything near the edges gets stretched and distorted. Good for exaggerating perspective for a certain effect, but it's not a lens I'd want to use very often.

A.
 
Have a look at the Sigma 15-30mm as well. Much cheaper than the 12-24 and it is the equivalent of just over 9mm on a full frame (on 1.6mm crop terms)

I have one, using it on an 1.3 body, and I love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top