Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
FWIW ...
... the Sigma 12-24mm is substantially better at 12mm than the Canon 11-24L at 11mm ...

Goodness ... Wink

You mean "big and humungous" or "very good"? Just because it's both  ^_^


Outside it felt a little less protective than Nikon's magnesium chassis - but concerning the zoom and other mechanical functions, the Nikon is a bit more wobbly. There's noise when shaking the lens a bit - nothing on the Sigma side of things. I found the absence of the colorful flares remarkable on the Sigma, I'm used to more difficult behavior.


I'm wondering what the test will tell. At least, you don't need to walk far distances  Big Grin

There are reports though that it goes downhill after 18mm, particularly due to focus shift.

This must be a supertester - Ultra wide angle, not really fast with f/4 and still being able to prove focus-shift  Big Grin I found it difficult to focus adjust the 20/1.4 which remains not reliable in PDAF wide open. Mostly because it's difficult to get proper targets at infinity. Maybe I need to book a flight in space...


I'm looking for a replacement or a sidekick for the optically superb 14-24 from Nikon. The real bad thing with that lens is sensitivity to sunbeams. Maybe I keep it for indoors because of f/2.8 and since there are a lot of UWA to choose these days, the second hand prices are not worth a sell.


Another candidate is the 14/1.8. I'm a bit afraid it suffers from the same effects I could not work around at the 20/1.4. I was also tempted to get an Irix which has not AF-problems for sure. Just because it has no AF... 

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)