12-24 Sigma or 14mm uwa canon?

[Benosaurous]

yet another noob question. Any users of 12-24 sigma and 14mm L uwa canon lens willing to share their experiences with this 2 lens? (will be better with photos comparisons). In terms of money spent worthwhile, and treat it that i am yet another user trying to plan for FF era, is the 12-24 or the 14mm worth for the buy? read lotsa bad reviews of the 14mm and little known about the sigma, anyone can enlighten me?

Price Tag: $995 MS
Model Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG
Focal length 12-24mm
Max aperture F/4.5-5.6
Min aperture f/22
Construction 16/12 elements/groups
Angle of view 122-84.1°(Full frame)
Min Focus 0.28m
Filter size Rear Gelatine
Dimensions 87x102.5mm
Weight 0.6kg

Price Tag: $2800 OP
Model Canon 14mm f/2.8 L II USM
Focal length 14mm Prime
Max aperture f/2.8
Min aperture f/22
Construction 11-14 elements/groups
Angle of view 104°/ 81°/ 114° (Full frame)
Min Focus 0.2m
Filter size , filter holder
Dimensions 80×94mm
Weight 0.645kg

[Kit]

Bad reviews on the 1st generation 14mm or the MkII??

[Benosaurous]

more on the 1st generation actually, 2nd generation has quite some bad reviews stating that not as good as they were expecting but there were good ones also, therefore didnt know who to trust.

[adamadam]

My only experience with the Sigma 12-24 is seeing how wide 12mm is on full frame.... superwide!

[draeger]

Same question on the 12-24 too. It seems that not much people are selling used copies of this lens.

[coffee3in1]

if there's such a thing as too wide, i'll be the first to say so

Back to topic, the price diff tells me the 14mm must be better the 12-24. no flaming.

Originally Posted by adamadam My only experience with the Sigma 12-24 is seeing how wide 12mm is on full frame.... superwide!

[KangS]

The Sigma may prove to be a better buy if 'bang for the buck' is a major consideration.

I have not tried the 14mm prime, but I do own and have the Sigma 12-24mm. Its a great lens for the price due to the extremely well controlled distortion even at 12mm. Its not the best in terms of sharpness as well as having some QC issues with decentering issues.

However, I've brought mine for calibration with Sigma once, its better but still not as sharp as I would hope it to be.

However, shooting at f8 and likes, the images sharpen quite nicely under photoshop, so may or may not be too your satisfaction (standards ).

As far as I've heard, the sharpest would possibly be the Zeiss 21mm.

[Benosaurous]

thanks for the reply, thats what i am trying to find out, if the 12-24mm is "bang for the bucks" lens, or if it is not, should i just save up for the 14mm (where i heard alot of bad reviews for its 1st generation) and lesser user reviews about the mk2. sharpness and distortion wise, is the sigma 12-24mm good at its 12mm? Which i guess is all i will use for landscape. any sigma or canon users can share some photos taken by the lens?

[ST1100]

Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm, Canon 1Ds.



100% of corner:

[ST1100]

i did my research on the 12mm to 14mm range before i got the Sigma. i checked out full size pictures of the canon 14mm, tamron 14mm and the sigma 14mm. This was before the Canon 14mm mk II came out. Anyway, conclusion was all of them (including the sigma 12-24) were quite weak at the edges and corners. For the performance, i felt the 14mm primes were overpriced, so ended up with the Sigma. Not a frequently used lens though, because i have a 16-35 and the colours are a lot better on it.

[Benosaurous]

hey thanks ST, is that the gateway building? i also felt that the 14mm is kinda over price, it can almost get u a 17-40L and a 24-70L.

actually the 16-35 is one of my consideration for uwa shots, although it definitely wont help with my aps-c 450D, but its not far from 14mm with a considerate good zoom and 2.8 bokeh for some friends and family close up shots. i was actually thinking of my lineup to buy as

16-35 F2.8L + 70-200(f4 or f2.8 still considering)L IS + 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS

where 16-35 for landscape and walkaround(600g the max i can take for walkaround), 70-200 for portraits and 100-400 for zoom (animals, etc)

or

replacing away the 16-35 with
12-24sigma for landscape and 17-40L(only 400g+) walk around.

i dont mind losing the 35-70 range as i seldom take photos within that range. and i have 50mm

I'm not loaded or wat, but just planning lineup of lens to save up for.

so do you think 16-35L is worth the bucks? after reading all negative reviews about it, i am begining to look around for substitudes or like what many says, just skip it for efs 17-55 f2.8 and patiently wait for the next generation of uwa L lens.

[KangS]

If you intend to use it on a crop camera, then you should seriously consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Quite possibly the best APS-C UWA lens on the market right now.. Sharp wide open, stepped down 1 stop, edge to edge as the owners seem to be claiming!

Have some shots on my PC back home, will have to dig them up and post them.

As I mentioned, the Sigma 12-24mm is 'not that sharp' straight out of the box, but a decent copy (mine has been calibrated once ), will sharpen very well under photoshop post processing. When shooting ultrawide at 12mm, you'll probably have to step down to about f11 - f13 to get decent edge sharpness.

Then again, as illustrated above, due to the wide angle, the DOF of the picture is very difficult to control even with ultra small apertures as large portions of the picture will be at infinity and large portions will be in close focus, so when they are already in different focus ranges, its rather tough getting a picture thats sharp edge to edge isn't it ?

One thing I found with the Sigma was that if you shoot "infinity", keep everything at "infinity", as far as possible and the overall sharpness edge to edge tends to look a lot better...

[CYRN]

Originally Posted by KangS If you intend to use it on a crop camera, then you should seriously consider the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Quite possibly the best APS-C UWA lens on the market right now.. Sharp wide open, stepped down 1 stop, edge to edge as the owners seem to be claiming! Have some shots on my PC back home, will have to dig them up and post them. As I mentioned, the Sigma 12-24mm is 'not that sharp' straight out of the box, but a decent copy (mine has been calibrated once ), will sharpen very well under photoshop post processing. When shooting ultrawide at 12mm, you'll probably have to step down to about f11 - f13 to get decent edge sharpness. Then again, as illustrated above, due to the wide angle, the DOF of the picture is very difficult to control even with ultra small apertures as large portions of the picture will be at infinity and large portions will be in close focus, so when they are already in different focus ranges, its rather tough getting a picture thats sharp edge to edge isn't it ? One thing I found with the Sigma was that if you shoot "infinity", keep everything at "infinity", as far as possible and the overall sharpness edge to edge tends to look a lot better...

I find that Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm hyperfocus at about 2 meter. No need to focus at infinity.

It a fun lens to use, distortion is very well controlled. Cannot complain about edge-to-edge sharpness.

BTW, how did Sigma calibrate your lens? Lens calibrated to body? I tot Sigma Sg can't do such calibration?

[spartacus.ret]

i think TS is probably looking at a lens that can also be used on full frame, otherwise i'm sure he would have thought of all the aps-c designed ultra-wides, no?

[Benosaurous]

and yea, i am looking towards FF, or i surely will be considering the 10-22mm.

so in short do you feel that 12-24 is worth the bucks? i think i will give up the 14mm uwa, its far too costly. with that amount of money i can almost get the sigma 12-24 + the 16-35 2.8L

[KangS]

Here are some picts I've taken with the Sigma 12-24mm at 12mm.

Not your typical picts straight out of the camera, but as I mentioned, they sharpen very nicely with the appropriate process flow for each picture, so I'm quite happy with the picts as they turn out.

(Would have to dig out the original full-res picts if you want a 100% crop)

[Shootking]

Not bad pics! KangS. Only gripe is that the pics are not as contrasty and punchy as those L lens, but that can be easily fixed in PS.

In short, if people want to have minimal PS, go for L. If got time to PS and shoot in RAW, go for 12-24. And make sure to test for perfect copies of 12-24 in shops

[KangS]

Originally Posted by Shootking Not bad pics! KangS. Only gripe is that the pics are not as contrasty and punchy as those L lens, but that can be easily fixed in PS. In short, if people want to have minimal PS, go for L. If got time to PS and shoot in RAW, go for 12-24. And make sure to test for perfect copies of 12-24 in shops

I'm not extirely sure of that but on my monitor, the picts are already very saturated so pushing the saturation any further might really be over the top a little.

[Shootking]

Originally Posted by KangS I'm not extirely sure of that but on my monitor, the picts are already very saturated so pushing the saturation any further might really be over the top a little.

Hmm i see. Maybe it's just me, but I feel that the Esplanade pic can be more contrast a little, because as i see it the pic is like being covered with a layer of thin haze. Or maybe it's just me. Difference in taste . But nevertheless your pics are sharp. Did you shoot in RAW?

[ST1100]

TS, yep, it's the Gateway. You might want to note that KangS' pictures were done on a 1.6x crop. The 12-24's a fine lens in the center portion, but totally different story on the outer edges on a FF. If you're very sure you're going FF in the future, you'd need to get hold of a FF to test the lens when you buy.