Sigma 12-24 or Canon 17-40 Anyone used both?

EspressoJunkie

EspressoJunkie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,886
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
Yes
I need to scratch that ultrawide itch( for a Canon 6D), and the obvious choice is the Canon 17-40. Ive had one before and I know it's a decent enough performer. However I like wide to be wide, and the Sigma 12-24 has also caught my eye. I understand that filters aren't an option, but as I'd mainly be using it indoors its not too much of an issue.

The only one that would be in my price range though would be the original Sigma, but I'm wondering how it holds up optically compared to the Canon.

Has anyone used the original Sigma 12-24 on a FF and if so how did you like it?
 
I had a Sigma and used it on my 20D and 5D and on those it was really good with effectively no distortion. It really has to be used to be appreciated.

Modern high mp count cameras may show weaknesses I couldn't see with my 5D but I suppose the same is true of the 17-40mm and btw, the difference between 17 and 12mm is big :D

I'm a big fan of this Sigma lens and I do miss it.
 
The Sigma is a LOT wider than the Canon offering - at such short FLs, a few mm makes a BIG difference! I use my 12-24 a fair bit (when using the Nikon FF kit) and it's much better corrected for rectilinear distortions than my 14mm Tamron prime. Corner softness has been reported but TBH, I've never noticed it in my shots on my copy. Not the fastest lens in terms of aperture but I usually use it at f/8-11 anyway. Filters CAN be used - slot in behind the rear element for solid tints and held/blutacked in front of the rig for grads and pols, or there might be a Lee adaptor for it now.
 
Had or have several Sigmas and not had a problem with any of them. Allegedly, newer copies have been subjected to stricter QC so should suffer less from the issues that dogged some older lenses. (I also have a pet theory that one retailer was sticking returned poor copies back into general stock so one lens may have been responsible for a few reports of dodgy copies... But that's pure guesswork!)
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You really really really want to get Canon 16-35 f/4 IS. There is absolutely no contest there
Click to expand...

Unless you want to shoot wider than 16mm at which focal lengths the 16-35mm is frankly crap :D

And on the subject of the Sigma 12-24mm and filters. You can leave the bucket in pace and screw on something. I occasionally used a Cokin filter system on mine and although I can't remember at what exact focal length the filter system doesn't get in the way I think it's about 20mm or so. I hear that some tack a filter directly on to the lens although I never felt the need myself and there's the issue of how a filter will affect the shot at such wide focal lengths.
 
Does it have to be a zoom? I have the Samyang 14mm on my 6d and the sharpness and resolution are second to none. It does suffer moustache distortion but that can be corrected easily in LR / DXO etc. Just throwing it out there as it's significantly less expensive, and rather good! Only downside is that it's MF, but for urbex where you get time to compose each shot, I shouldn't think that's a deal breaker?
 
You could compare the lenses on
  • The-Digital-Picture.com
However the 17-40 they have looks like its a duffer
 
odd jim said:
Does it have to be a zoom? I have the Samyang 14mm on my 6d and the sharpness and resolution are second to none. It does suffer moustache distortion but that can be corrected easily in LR / DXO etc. Just throwing it out there as it's significantly less expensive, and rather good! Only downside is that it's MF, but for urbex where you get time to compose each shot, I shouldn't think that's a deal breaker?
Click to expand...

I've had the Samyang before and while it's great, I did find it somewhat limiting. I like the flexibility that a zoom offers.
 
odd jim said:
Does it have to be a zoom? I have the Samyang 14mm on my 6d and the sharpness and resolution are second to none. It does suffer moustache distortion but that can be corrected easily in LR / DXO etc. Just throwing it out there as it's significantly less expensive, and rather good! Only downside is that it's MF, but for urbex where you get time to compose each shot, I shouldn't think that's a deal breaker?
Click to expand...


IIRC, the Samyang is completely manual on Canons, although it has a small degree of automation on Nikons. If primes are in the mix, there is/was a Tamron 14mm f/2.8 that is AF and aperture and IIRC, there was a Sigma as well. Might be worth looking at the second hand dealers' sites...
 
Nod said:
IIRC, the Samyang is completely manual on Canons, although it has a small degree of automation on Nikons. If primes are in the mix, there is/was a Tamron 14mm f/2.8 that is AF and aperture and IIRC, there was a Sigma as well. Might be worth looking at the second hand dealers' sites...
Click to expand...

It's manual, though on Canons if you set them to aperture priority you only need to adjust the aperture and focus - the exposure is still calculated by the body at least. (The Nikon mount is also fully manual but the AE version has a reporting chip, useful for exif).
 
I was under the impression that the Nikon version was auto aperture but if you say it's just reporting the aperture, I'll take your word for it.
 
If the main use is for Urbex, would a lens that is weather sealed be better suited to the damp, dripping conditions sometimes encountered in old structures? Also, would 24mm be long enough if you don't want to change lenses during your explorations, or would 40mm be a more useful 'max-out' ceiling and perhaps enable its use as a single 'walk-around' lens for the majority of the sites you visit? Really, only you will know the answers to this based on the destinations you visit and the sort of photos you take, so I can't advise on a choice between the two. Hope this is useful.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
If the main use is for Urbex, would a lens that is weather sealed be better suited to the damp, dripping conditions sometimes encountered in old structures? Also, would 24mm be long enough if you don't want to change lenses during your explorations, or would 40mm be a more useful 'max-out' ceiling and perhaps enable its use as a single 'walk-around' lens for the majority of the sites you visit? Really, only you will know the answers to this based on the destinations you visit and the sort of photos you take, so I can't advise on a choice between the two. Hope this is useful.
Click to expand...
Although 24 is wide enough for most situations, when in a cramped cottage etc it becomes not very wide at all! I have experimented with stitching multiple photos but it's pretty hit and miss.

Weather sealing would be nice but if somewhere was to enough have dripping water dripping to concern me I'd probably be avoiding getting the camera out at all!

Thanks for the input though :)
 
EspressoJunkie said:
Although 24 is wide enough for most situations, when in a cramped cottage etc it becomes not very wide at all! I have experimented with stitching multiple photos but it's pretty hit and miss.
Click to expand...

Sorry for any confusion here, I was referring to the upper zoom range limit eg 12-24mm, as opposed to 17-40mm. I wasn't suggesting that you used a lens with 24mm minimum (as wide as it would go). My point was that if you could work with a 17mm (at the widest range) then 40mm might be a more useful upper limit for you than the 24mm of the Sigma?

This might mean that you could just take one lens with you on exploration trips most of the time, rather than having to change lenses to zoom in tighter on specific objects that are further away from you. Hope this makes sense now? :)
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
I was under the impression that the Nikon version was auto aperture but if you say it's just reporting the aperture, I'll take your word for it.
Click to expand...

I think the Nikon mount version couldn't auto expose in aperture mode without the reporting chip, unlike the Canon, so I think the Nikon mount AE version in effect acts in exactly the same way as the Canon (with the addition of exif). The aperture is definitely manual as the Nikon mount AE lens was mistakingly sent to me instead of the Canon!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification, Jim. Not sure why I thought that the Nikon version allowed the camera to control the aperture in S (Tv) mode!
 
I have used both lenses while the canon might be lightly better the sigma is a very capable lens I got mine when I was on a crop sensor Canon 10D but have used it on both 5D and Mk2 and been happy with the results only printed up to A4 but happy and looks good on my 23" monitor
 
Alan Neilson said:
I have used both lenses while the canon might be lightly better the sigma is a very capable lens I got mine when I was on a crop sensor Canon 10D but have used it on both 5D and Mk2 and been happy with the results only printed up to A4 but happy and looks good on my 23" monitor
Click to expand...

Your monitor won't be showing it anywhere near full resolution, I'd hope it would look good :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top