10-06-2011, 10:33 AM
[quote name='thankdream' timestamp='1317834915' post='12136']
Thank you very much for you reply!
1. So are you saying that although 12-24mm can be used for both APS-C and FF, the optical quality is only good on APS-C? It may leave the No.1 advantage of this lens pretty weak.
2. What about the overall optical quality on APS-C of 12-24 and 8-16? Do you know which one is better?
[/quote]
1. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you concluding the old one performs better must stem from you comparing the FF review of the 2nd version to the APS-C review of the 1st version. If you compare both on APS-C, the new one is better. If you compare both on FF, the new one is better.
The old one is much better on FF and a little better on APS-C concerning distortion. For the rest (over all sharpness, CA performance) the new one is better.
2. Saying which one is better from the 12-24 or 8-16 is a bit nonsensical... the 8-16mm is so much wider that comparing is not very sensible.
Get the Tokina 11-16mm if you don't want/line bulging front elements, or want/need to sue certain kinds of filters.
Get the Sigma 8-16mm if you want an super ultra wide lens on APS-C. The difference between 8 and 11/12mm is very big.
Get the Sigma 12-24mm if you need a lens both for APS-C (ultra wide) and FF (super ultra wide).
Choose with those criteria in mind. Differences in image quality are rather marginal, and therefore not so interesting.
Thank you very much for you reply!
1. So are you saying that although 12-24mm can be used for both APS-C and FF, the optical quality is only good on APS-C? It may leave the No.1 advantage of this lens pretty weak.
2. What about the overall optical quality on APS-C of 12-24 and 8-16? Do you know which one is better?
[/quote]
1. No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you concluding the old one performs better must stem from you comparing the FF review of the 2nd version to the APS-C review of the 1st version. If you compare both on APS-C, the new one is better. If you compare both on FF, the new one is better.
The old one is much better on FF and a little better on APS-C concerning distortion. For the rest (over all sharpness, CA performance) the new one is better.
2. Saying which one is better from the 12-24 or 8-16 is a bit nonsensical... the 8-16mm is so much wider that comparing is not very sensible.
Get the Tokina 11-16mm if you don't want/line bulging front elements, or want/need to sue certain kinds of filters.
Get the Sigma 8-16mm if you want an super ultra wide lens on APS-C. The difference between 8 and 11/12mm is very big.
Get the Sigma 12-24mm if you need a lens both for APS-C (ultra wide) and FF (super ultra wide).
Choose with those criteria in mind. Differences in image quality are rather marginal, and therefore not so interesting.