Sigma 12-24 indepth review..


Status
Not open for further replies.

hackie

New Member
Jan 18, 2002
819
0
0
Visit site
#9
P24 said:
any price and availibility in SIN ?
Sven :cool:
john 316 qouted me abt $1150.. but no stock for nikon mount yet~~~

think konota also has.. abt tat price too! BUY BUY BUY!!!!
 

Kit

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,708
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#10
I went to AP a few weeks before CNY, they have the Nikon mount ones. Quoted $1200+. Couldn't find any Canon mount ones though.
 

finkster

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2003
665
0
16
SG
Visit site
#14
Tested this lens with a Nikon 18-35mm F3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4.

The Sigma fared the worst in terms of sharpness and color. Soft wide open, and not really sharp at F8 too. Perhaps the set I tested was a lemon, but it was the case then. Cosmetics and styling looks quite ugly too. Heavy and chunky like most Sigma's.

Being a G lens too, it certainly restricts the user to the newer bodies only.

Good point is that the distortion at 12mm is quite well controlled. Similar to the other two lenses tested.
 

HelmetBox

New Member
Sep 9, 2003
1,324
0
0
#15
finkster said:
Tested this lens with a Nikon 18-35mm F3.5-4.5 and the Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4.

The Sigma fared the worst in terms of sharpness and color. Soft wide open, and not really sharp at F8 too. Perhaps the set I tested was a lemon, but it was the case then. Cosmetics and styling looks quite ugly too. Heavy and chunky like most Sigma's.

Being a G lens too, it certainly restricts the user to the newer bodies only.

Good point is that the distortion at 12mm is quite well controlled. Similar to the other two lenses tested.
:D

have you checked out the link? the guy who tested the lens appears to be some pro....... You should check out his tutorialz.......

Anyway he mentioned a few times that its in his opinion.

:D
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#16
From the samples on the net, the distortion seems very well controlled for a 12mm. How does it perform(barrel distortion) compared to the Nikon and Tamron at 20mm?
 

finkster

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2003
665
0
16
SG
Visit site
#17
Nope, didn't read it yet becos I didn't want it to influence what I felt. Will be going to check it out now.

I tested all three lenses at their widest focal length at both wide-open apertures and at F8, and their narrowest focal length, again wide-open and at F8.

Didn't check ranges in-between or at other apertures as it would have taken more time. Just did a quick 10min test to see how they performed against each other.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#18
I see, coz I like everything about the Tamron except for the noticeable barrel distortion at 17-20mm.

If the sigma has such good distortion characteristics, then it might be worth checking out, even if I have to stick to f11 all the time.:)
 

finkster

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2003
665
0
16
SG
Visit site
#19
Yup. The Sigma does have very low barrel distortion. The Tamron and Nikon does have BD, but in most situations, should still be acceptable to most users, unless there's a demand for absolutely straight edges.

The Sigma is not a low-light lens though. Indoor wedding shoots and dark ballrooms would be pushing it a fair bit.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#20
Agree, but I've been spoiled by my 20mm prime and I can't stand seeing distortion when I look in the viewfinder. I would have bought the tamron at PIA if not for that niggling point. Now I feel like waiting for Sigma's new 17-35 or before I decide on it or the Sigma/Nikon 12-24mm instead.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom