Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sigma 12-24.
#1
Hi I just bought me the sigma 12-24 because I just bought a 5D II that I haven't received yet but tested this lens on my 7D, can someone maybe Klaus or anybody that owns it look at the samples and tell me if it's an ok copy? the links here so I don't need to post again on this site.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=35786796

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.a...e=35786918

the first link is @ 12mm wide open and the 2nd link @ 24mm wide open thanksWink
#2
Why are you shooting wide open? What reason do you have for that? With wide angles.. one really does not use big apertures for a shallow DOF. And it was sunny. So... again, why are you "testing" this extreme wide angle lens wide open?



Does not make much sense to me....



Also, why are you looking at crops from different parts of the frame (and as such, of different distances, while focus is only in one plane)? Focus on something and look at that focussed part at 100%, not at unfocussed parts.



And do close down the lens to normal values! Then you can see how the lens performs. One would only use wide open with very up close subjects to try get subject isolation, or with very low light conditions where a long exposure is not an option.
#3
Hi Christos,



You're only using 40% of the total area covered by this lens on the 7D as compared to FF, and that is more or less the "good" area from my experience. Even then, to me it doesn't look convincing.



The two characteristics of this lens that are any good at all, IMO, is the fact that even at 12 mm straight lines are straight, and the price.



I expect this lens to behave less on FF. IMO, you're better off getting an 8-16 Sigma for APS-C, giving you 12.8 mm equivalent on APS-C rather than 12 on FF, but at quite a bit better quality (and probably usable on FF from about 13-14 mm as well).



Alternatively, if you don't mind manual focusing and manual aperture selection, are ok with 14 mm rather than 12, and a good amount of distortion, you could go for the Samyang 14 F/2.8, or for twice the price of the Sigma 12-24, the Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter.



If you want to do architectural photography, the only option is either the Sigma 12-24, at an IQ I do not recommend, or the Canon TS-E 17L, at a price.



HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#4
[quote name='Brightcolours' date='13 July 2010 - 02:40 PM' timestamp='1279028434' post='981']

Why are you shooting wide open? What reason do you have for that? With wide angles.. one really does not use big apertures for a shallow DOF. And it was sunny. So... again, why are you "testing" this extreme wide angle lens wide open?



Does not make much sense to me....



Also, why are you looking at crops from different parts of the frame (and as such, of different distances, while focus is only in one plane)? Focus on something and look at that focussed part at 100%, not at unfocussed parts.



And do close down the lens to normal values! Then you can see how the lens performs. One would only use wide open with very up close subjects to try get subject isolation, or with very low light conditions where a long exposure is not an option.

[/quote]I know that I just got done shooting it at f8 and f11, I just wanted to see how soft it was wide open.
#5
[quote name='Christos' date='13 July 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1279028822' post='983']

I know that I just got done shooting it at f8 and f11, I just wanted to see how soft it was wide open.

[/quote]

Thanks I'll see I might try another sample, but if that is no good then maybe I will send it back and get the EF 17-40 for landscape useWink
#6
[quote name='wim' date='13 July 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1279028710' post='982']

Hi Christos,



You're only using 40% of the total area covered by this lens on the 7D as compared to FF, and that is more or less the "good" area from my experience. Even then, to me it doesn't look convincing.



The two characteristics of this lens that are any good at all, IMO, is the fact that even at 12 mm straight lines are straight, and the price.



I expect this lens to behave less on FF. IMO, you're better off getting an 8-16 Sigma for APS-C, giving you 12.8 mm equivalent on APS-C rather than 12 on FF, but at quite a bit better quality (and probably usable on FF from about 13-14 mm as well).

[/quote]



I thought it was impossible to mount APS-C lenses on FF Canons due to lack of mirror clearance?



-Lars
#7
[quote name='larsrc' date='14 July 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1279105202' post='996']

I thought it was impossible to mount APS-C lenses on FF Canons due to lack of mirror clearance?



-Lars

[/quote]Hi Larsrc, the sigma 12-24 is an FF lensWink
#8
To be more specific on that, only Canon EF-S lenses can't be normally used on their full frame bodies, as they do protrude a little into the mirror area. However the 3rd party APS-C lenses I've tried don't have that protrusion, so can work if you don't mind the smaller image circle.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#9
[quote name='Christos' date='14 July 2010 - 01:16 PM' timestamp='1279106202' post='997']

Hi Larsrc, the sigma 12-24 is an FF lensWink

[/quote]



Yes, but wim was talking about the 8-16 (drool, BTWSmile



-Lars
#10
[quote name='larsrc' date='14 July 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1279105202' post='996']

I thought it was impossible to mount APS-C lenses on FF Canons due to lack of mirror clearance?



-Lars

[/quote]

No, it is very well possible, except with the Canon EF-S lenses.



Essentially, all of these third party lenses have to cater for the longest register distance of the mounts for which the manufacturers want to sell their lenses, so even a "digital", APS-C, or whatever the lens is called, even though it caters for APS-C, in EF fitting it will mount without a problem on any Canon, due to Canon having one of the shortest register distances. If the mirror doesn't hit the lens on a Nikon, it certainly won't do so on a Canon.



And this is certainly true for Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. I tested several of these personally <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.



It also means that you can get frame filling images on a FF camera, with such a lens, provided you are either close enough, or with a zoom lens if you zoom in by some, generally a factor of about 1.3 to 1.5, i.e., zoom, e.g., a 10 - 20 mm lens to somewhere between 13 and 15 mm to determine where the point is where the VF is completely filled by the image.



I found, f.e., that the Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom fills the entire frame on a 5D by approximately 14.8 mm without mechanical vignetting, covering a whopping 183 degrees in AoV. And this without shaving the lens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />.



It varies a bit from lens to lens, but this is the type of thing you may expect. IQ-wise it probably doesn't even deteriorate that much, except maybe for some extra optical vignetting.



HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)