• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Sigma 12-24

Mike Shimwell

New member
Nicolas Claris said

The Sigma 12-24 is much better than the Canon 17-40 mm! but beatten by the new Canon 14mm (pricey!) I have had the 3 of them (I have kept the 14 mm)


Nic, and anyone else, can you discuss your experience with the Sigma 12-24. I have considered buying one of these to give me something wider than the 24-105, but have held off because of doubts over the lens'performance on the 1Ds3. Similarly the Canon 17-40 does not appear to be well regarded.

Unfortunately wide primes are (very) expensive and even one would be too much at present - UK prices have increased dramatically in the last few months - so I keep wondering about the Sigma as an alternative?

Cheers

Mike
 

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Nicolas Claris said

The Sigma 12-24 is much better than the Canon 17-40 mm! but beatten by the new Canon 14mm (pricey!) I have had the 3 of them (I have kept the 14 mm)


Nic, and anyone else, can you discuss your experience with the Sigma 12-24. I have considered buying one of these to give me something wider than the 24-105, but have held off because of doubts over the lens'performance on the 1Ds3. Similarly the Canon 17-40 does not appear to be well regarded.

Unfortunately wide primes are (very) expensive and even one would be too much at present - UK prices have increased dramatically in the last few months - so I keep wondering about the Sigma as an alternative?

Cheers

Mike
Hi Mike,

I have had the 12-24 and now I have the 17-40. So I might be able to compare their performance on a 5D FF body. I'll dig into my catalogues to see if I can find something soon. My impression of the 12-24 was, contrary to Nicolas' positive experience with it, that it was not sharp enough and the coloring was too warm. From the aberration point of view, the 12-24 was a good lens. I'll come back to this later.

Edit: It is entirely possible that my copy of the 12-24 was less than optimal. I have heard of QC problems with this lens.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:

Cem_Usakligil

Well-known member
Hi Mike,

BTW, if you are considering the new lens for your line up in addition to the 24-105, then I think only the 12-24 makes sense. The 17-40 would overlap and not add too much at the wide end. Just make sure that you get a good sample of the 12-24 and you are set.

Cheers,
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Vignetting

I have the 12-24 and it vignettes at the wide end. Also, you cannot put any protective filters on the front element. I haven't used it at all for at least 2 years but maybe I should play with it. I am doing an urban photo safari next month and it might be worth taking. I also have the 16-35 2.8 - maybe a comparison would be an exercise worth doing.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Bonsoir Mike
I used the Sigma 12-24 for almost 3 years, on 1Ds, 1Ds2 and 1Ds3…
Before buying it I made some side by side comparison wiht the 17-24 I had… I bought the Sigma fo better overall as well as in corners sharpness.
Under ƒ8 the Sigma has some strong vignetting, and it's quite hard to get completely rid of it in PP.
Today I have the new Canon 14 which is brilliant but costs far more.

I use UW lenses for both interiors of boats and also boats sailing.
As said recently to Rachel, it is demanding as you really have to be in the exact position, but then these UW lenses do bring power! as well as pretty neat graphic aspects.
Architects of building usually don't like these lenses, I can understand why.
An UW lens does "enhance" hence change the reality…

Back to your question, if today I had to buy an UW lens with low budget I'd go with the Sigma again, but I would buy it in a brick and mortar shop to test it before doing the check.
Sigma quality controllers are a bitt too tolerant for me, and I know that they are some "dogs" around…

Sigma 12-24 @ 12
_45R7295_LR2.jpg


_45R4454_C1-4.jpg


_45R4736_C1-4.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mike Shimwell

New member
Cem, Nic

Thanks very much. I just looked at the newly inflated prices of these lenses. The Canon 14 now costs over 1800GBP!!! That's more than 10 times the cost of my Voigtlander 15mm for the rangefinder:) The Sigma is around 650GBP, so much more manageable. I would like to think an alternative might be the Zeiss Distagon 18 in EF mount, but I can't imagine that will be a 'budget' choice either.

Maybe I'll visit my local shops and try a few of the Sigmas. I think the QC issues are genuine on this lens.

Thanks

Mike
 

Daniel Buck

New member
I've got a 12-24, the quality isn't what I would call impeccable, but then again it's the only zoom lens that I own.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
_45R4736_C1-4.jpg

Nicolas,

This picture at 12mm, f7.0 at 1/8 sec is amazing since there is no IS on that lens. Was the boat in dock? In any case it shows little obvious distortion or vignetting. Is this cropped? If so, I'd love to see the original. With todays levels of DSLR pixels, this is simply a wonderful time for photography. Even if two images had to be stitched, that's a no brainer.

Mike,

I am interested in the 17 mm T/S as that offers great opportunities for wide view and also for architecture to straighten buildings.

My 18mm Distagon won't work on my 5D without surgery to the mirror. With my 5DII is becomes 21.6mm equivalent, just too wide for what I want without stitching.

Nicolas,

Would the 14mm Canon be to long for this cabin shot?

Asher
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alain Briot

pro member
What a boat! I love it. I really have to think about getting in a position to have one of these.

I also have a Sigma 12/24, Canon 17-40 and Canon 14mm and my conclusions are similar to Nicolas'. You get what you pay for.

But who cares about the lens, the boat is where its at!
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
What a boat! I love it. I really have to think about getting in a position to have one of these.

I also have a Sigma 12/24, Canon 17-40 and Canon 14mm and my conclusions are similar to Nicolas'. You get what you pay for.

But who cares about the lens, the boat is where its at!


Alain, I suspect that if you don't buy the 17T/S then the boat will follow:) You are right, it is lovely though.

Mike
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
16-35

Where in the wide angle arena does Canon's 16-35 fit in? Most of the people phogoraphers shoot with that as a primary wide angle lens over the Sigma?
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Where in the wide angle arena does Canon's 16-35 fit in? Most of the people phogoraphers shoot with that as a primary wide angle lens over the Sigma?

The 16/35 is better than the 17/40. The 16/35 II is slightly better than the first one (there's two different models, I and II). I'd rate it as comparable to the Sigma 12/24. The sigma has the advantage of the wider focal length.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Canon had a real issue with wide angles prior to introducing the 14mm. In one word: they did not have good wide angles (that's 4 words, no let me recount, 7). Many of us went to non-canon brands. Some of the finest 35mm wide angles were made by Contax and today can be mounted on Canon DSLRs via adapters. Some adapters do give access to aperture and lens data but none offer auto focusing.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
This picture at 12mm, f7.0 at 1/8 sec is amazing since there is no IS on that lens. Was the boat in dock? In any case it shows little obvious distortion or vignetting. Is this cropped? If so, I'd love to see the original. With todays levels of DSLR pixels, this is simply a wonderful time for photography. Even if two images had to be stitched, that's a no brainer.

Would the 14mm Canon be to long for this cabin shot?

Hi all
@ Asher
the picture of the interior of the boat is not cropped. It was shot with a tripod. The boat was not docked but ancored in a mooring close to Istanbul in front of an island that Cem knows well ; -)
I think the Canon 14 would me much better (color and definition wise), worth the loss of 2 mm…

Stitching is time consuming, I can't do for all shots of all cabins/rooms of the boats I shoot, so I keep that for some rare opportunities…

The aTec with the Rodenstock 23mm would have been even better, but as Alain pointed, you get what you pay for, and in the case of the arTec…

@ Alain
Yes, a nice boat, 'bout 2 million $… plus about 10% of that each year for maintenance, not having fuel expenses taken into account…
Start saving! (I can maybe get you a discount, I know the shipyard owner quite well ; -)
 

Alain Briot

pro member
@ Alain
Yes, a nice boat, 'bout 2 million $… plus about 10% of that each year for maintenance, not having fuel expenses taken into account…
Start saving! (I can maybe get you a discount, I know the shipyard owner quite well ; -)

I was wondering about the price. I was actually thinking a lot more than that. I have no point of reference. The maintenance is high. Then there's the mooring costs ? Is that what its called - or docking maybe?

What deal can you get with the shipyard?

Alain
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
I was wondering about the price. I was actually thinking a lot more than that. I have no point of reference. The maintenance is high. Then there's the mooring costs ? Is that what its called - or docking maybe?

What deal can you get with the shipyard?

Alain

Hi Alain
Price depends of brands, finishing, options in motoring/electronics/equipments…
Maintenance = to 10% is an average, it usually includes docking and insurance as well (usually moorings are free, but not safe for years round unless you live onboard…)

For the rest we come to a private thing, email me if you're serious on the subject… ;-)
 

Ron Morse

New member
My 18mm Distagon won't work on my 5D without surgery to the mirror. With my 5DII is becomes 21.6mm equivalent, just too wide for what I want without stitching.

Why do you say it becomes 21.6 equivalent Asher ? They are both full frame.
That "5DII" was wishful thinking, LOL! Mine is a 1DII! The 18mm Distagon works well with it.

Asher
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael Fontana

pro member
Mike

you might have a look at the Nikon 14-24 plus a adapter on Canon FF.

I'm running that combo and I'm really liking the results; IQ-wise, you can't beat it; it plays in the same league as the very best lenses, like the legendary YCZeiss 21 mm, etc.
Sharp from corner to corner, good microcontrast, practicly no distortions from 17 - 23 mm


MKB_18mm.jpg



Look at that thread.

The combo means semimanual focusing, only, for my jobs not a problem at all.
One of the best acquisitions I ever made; the 17- 40 isn't in use anymore; and yes, I had tested the 16 - 35 II, prior to go for the 14 - 24. It's like day and night...

I use most the 16 - 23 mm range, doing architecture photography.
 

James Godfrey

New member
I know this is a really old thread but which version of the sigma 12-24 is being referred to here? Also are all models compatible with the Canon 5D mk1 ?

Cheers,

James
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I know this is a really old thread but which version of the sigma 12-24 is being referred to here? Also are all models compatible with the Canon 5D mk1 ?

Cheers,

James

James,

The latest one is version II and is obtainable from B&H here but as mentioned above, this lens is best chosen at a store you can visit. If in NY, B&H would be the place. Anyway, they will service you well and are honest and will exchange a faulty lens. It fits all Canon EOS DSLR cameras.

Asher
 
Top