Sigma 12-24 or Canon 17-40

Paul Holtom

Paul Holtom

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,251
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Have just about decided to get a 5D MK2 which means that my Canon 10-22mm will have to go so what to replace it with.

Was thinking Canon 17-40mm f4 L as the 10-22 is really 16mm at the widest end when used on a crop sensor, but have also had suggested the Sigma 12-24mm.

Anyone have any experience of the Sigma or indeed both lenses?
 
I suppose it depends how wide you want to go. If you want to go really wide the Sigma is the one to pick as those extra few mm make a big difference at the wide end.

I use a Sigma 12-24mm on my x1.6 20D and I love it, it's wide and very well corrected but I use a 20-35mm on my film SLR which gives a similar view.
 
Congrats on the 5D II!

I've used both extensively with a 10d and 30d.

The 17-40 is immense. The sharpness, colours and contrast all superb.

The 12-24 however, I don't rate at all. It is wider, but the image quality in general was just not there. Sharpness especially couldn't compare.

I have heard the same from both my brothers, talking about different copies of both lenses too.

I would certainly get the 17-40.



P.s. For anyone reading this who has a cropped sensor, go for the Sigma 10-20. Great lens.
 
I have owned both lenses at the same time. They are both very good and both do very different things. I used them on a FF sensor and totally LOVED the 12-24 but I decided to keep the 17-40L as I found 17mm on a FF is wide enough for any needs I may have.

Both are excellent lenses
 
17-40mm, no question. Probably the finest lens I've ever used as a general walkabout lens for the money. Shame it's not Nikon....

17mm on FF is more than enough; 12mm on FF is silly....
 
12mm will get you shots that a 17mm wont and give you more creative opportunities. 17-40mm might be a more useable range but might lack the wow factor that 12-24mm might get.
 
specialman said:
17mm on FF is more than enough; 12mm on FF is silly....
Click to expand...



17mm just isn't wide enough (IMO). 12mm is very wide but sometimes you need that width. Somethines you may even need wider, which is when the 8mm comes out to play!
 
mark_farrell said:
In your opinion, of course...
Click to expand...

Of course...;)


Nod said:
17mm just isn't wide enough (IMO). 12mm is very wide but sometimes you need that width. Somethines you may even need wider, which is when the 8mm comes out to play!
Click to expand...

Trouble with anything that wide (12mm or so) is the distortion you get, not to mention the bending and convergance of verticals. I suppose for maximum effect then that fisheye look will work - some editorial or reportage actually benefits from this extreme look - but you also have to think about how many filters you can stack on the front of a 12mm and just how much vignetting you'll get that will need processing out later. My 12mm (18mm effective) on a DX sensor is too wide for more than one or two filters; on FF it'll be bonkers.....
 
specialman said:
17-40mm, no question. Probably the finest lens I've ever used as a general walkabout lens for the money. Shame it's not Nikon....

17mm on FF is more than enough; 12mm on FF is silly....
Click to expand...

It depends what you take pictures of. Sometimes you need all the wideness you can get, outdoors my Sigma 10-20 sometimes feels a bit silly, and I like to crop, but indoors I'm sometimes wishing I had more.
 
trencheel303 said:
It depends what you take pictures of. Sometimes you need all the wideness you can get, outdoors my Sigma 10-20 sometimes feels a bit silly, and I like to crop, but indoors I'm sometimes wishing I had more.
Click to expand...

...but of course, your 10-20mm (15-30mm effective on 1.5x) is designed for a cropped sensor, as is my 12-24mm (18-36mm effective on 1.5x); 12mm on FF is 12mm and that is very wiiiiiiiiide :)

Paul, what are you shooting by the way?
 
never used the 12-24mm, but i've got the 17-40mm on a FF 5D - it's perfect.
i don't know if you just want wide angles or ultra wide angles? but if you go with the 12-24mm i think the fish eye thing would get on your nerves after a bit (unless you want fisheye that is).

in my opinion of course :thumbs:
 
Well, whilst not a great pic, this was taken using a 12-24 on my 5D MkII in Chester a while back whilst testing one. As you can see, straight lines remain very straight.



It really was a rubbish photo, so please excuse the PP. There is some vignetting, but nothing that can't be fixed in lightroom...
 
woof woof said:
"that fisheye look"

Do you get that with the Sigma 12-24mm? I can't say that I've seen it, it's a very well corrected lens.

Write up here -

http://www.e-romagnoli.com/2009/02/sigma-12-24mm-f45-56-dg-ex-test-review/
Click to expand...

No, the 12-24 is incredibly well corrected for barrel and pincushion distortion. Of course it "suffers" from converging verticals and other perspective based effects but since they're due to the laws of physics, we just have to live with them or PP them out later.

As for the filter issue, well, "as any fule kno", the Sigma 12-24 doesn't take filters on the front - it has a slot behind the rear element for gels (a template is supplied to cut gels to fit), although for APS-C sensors, it's possible to remove a section of tyhe bucket cap to allow the fitting of conventional screw-in or square filter systems.
 
I was referring tot he fisheye only because the OP hadn't yet said it was aimed at landscape shooting. Any wide-angle, when used for portraiture and reportage will suffer the effects of
Nod said:
No, the 12-24 is incredibly well corrected for barrel and pincushion distortion. Of course it "suffers" from converging verticals and other perspective based effects but since they're due to the laws of physics, we just have to live with them or PP them out later.

As for the filter issue, well, "as any fule kno", the Sigma 12-24 doesn't take filters on the front - it has a slot behind the rear element for gels (a template is supplied to cut gels to fit), although for APS-C sensors, it's possible to remove a section of tyhe bucket cap to allow the fitting of conventional screw-in or square filter systems.
Click to expand...

The rear filter thing is a good idea, well done Sigma on that front. Still, means no grads etc, which are pretty standard for landscapery. Does a polariser fit into the slot?...

Mark Farrell, great shot - like the mono treatment. That looks pretty well controlled TBH.

Paul Holtom said:
I am wanting the lens for landscape stuff, so think the 17-40 is still the way to go.
Click to expand...

Good man - you won't be disappointed. I used one on a crop body for several years and couldn't have wanted for a sharper, more reliable lens. A mate uses one on his 5Dmk2 and I have to say it's the dog's bits. He teams the 17-40mm with a 24-70mm and as a pair they work flawlessly. Really is a dream set-up....
 
Mark Farrell, great shot - like the mono treatment. That looks pretty well controlled TBH.
Click to expand...

Cheers, The vignetting was added to some extent as there was distracting stuff in the corners, so it's not that bad in real life. I only gave it a bit of preset treatment in lightroom to make it presentable. It was after all a nip-out-of-the-shop test snap. No altering of distortion etc though - that's all as-is.

On the undabbled version, corners were a tad soft, but can't really be helped this wide. Apart from that pretty sharp. I guess the trade off is L-series sharpness, or extra width. I'm considering buying both the 12-24 and 17-40, using the 12-24 for the more specialist shot, as it is intended...
 
I must say, having read through this thread some posts are complete rubbish.

The Sigma 12-24 EX DG is a fine lens if you can get a good copy, I had the 12-24 Siggy, 17-40L and 24-70L, I sold the 17-40L and kept the others.

Images taken on the Sigma 12-24 EX DG on a Canon 5DMk2 Body.

Both are decent lenses at a similar price with quite good build quality, if you want to use filters it is easier on the 17-40L although i used Cokin P grads with a bit of blue tack on the 12-24, the distortion on either is comparable which is extrordinary for a 12mm lens.

The difference between 17mm and 12mm is extreme and if you need a wide lens then there is no wider rectilinear lens than the Sigma.

The biggest downside to the Sigma 12-24 EX DG is getting hold of a sharp copy and pre-testing is almost a requirement, but get a good one and it opens up some opportunities for photographs that no other lens can!
 
I picked up a 2nd hand Sigma 12-24 lens on Monday for a reasonable £319. Looked good enough to me. Used it for the first time properly last night. This is a heavily tweaked image (5 shot HDR) and is cropped slightly, but I'm happy with the results

4420477411_ec38565386.jpg
 
Polariser? On a SWA? On anything much wider than 28mm, the uneven polarisation makes pols next to useless (IMO). I don't use grads, even for landscapes - too much fiddling around getting them lined up properly with the horizon, which is rarelt a nice, straight line for the grad to sit against, anyway, leaving assorted parts of the scenery unnecessarily darkened (again, IMO).

Just as a matter of interest, Specialman, have you ever used the 12-24 or are your opinions all based on what you've read on the internet?
 
Nod said:
Polariser? On a SWA? On anything much wider than 28mm, the uneven polarisation makes pols next to useless (IMO). I don't use grads, even for landscapes - too much fiddling around getting them lined up properly with the horizon, which is rarelt a nice, straight line for the grad to sit against, anyway, leaving assorted parts of the scenery unnecessarily darkened (again, IMO).
Click to expand...

Disagree on the polariser comments - my 12-24 works fine with one, although i do concede on the unevenness at time; probably one frustration I've found with UWA lenses over the years but it's in the same court as corner (un)sharpness - I can live with it but I know it's there.

Nod said:
Just as a matter of interest, Specialman, have you ever used the 12-24 or are your opinions all based on what you've read on the internet?
Click to expand...

Nod, nope never used it - opinions based on common sense. Before we all get het up, if your read back through what I posted you'll see I haven't dissed the lens, just pointed out that any lens of this focal length on a full frame body will create very dramatic and distorted images, nothing more, nothing less. I know what focal lengths look like on FF and 17mm (IMO) is much more pleasing to the eye than 12mm. Of course people may disagree with me but that's the point of a discussion.... :)

I take it you're gearing up for a lambasting the like we've never heard or seen before....;)
 
"distorted images"

No it wont. It's a very well corrected lens. Maybe you shouldn't keep saying this until you've tried one?

There are images on the net, go and look at them and you may just be impressed.
 
Thought not.

Let me apologise for making comments based on real world experience of the lens in question rather than hearsay and conjecture.
 
woof woof said:
"distorted images"

No it wont. It's a very well corrected lens. Maybe you shouldn't keep saying this until you've tried one?

There are images on the net, go and look at them and you may just be impressed.
Click to expand...

And he obviously didn't bother to look at the thread link on my post!
 
just pointed out that any lens of this focal length on a full frame body will create very dramatic and distorted images
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's just not true. If you avoid tilting the lens up or down the Siggy produces the least distorted images I've seen.
 
By distortion they mean perspective distortion, not barrel distortion.
 
Very few lenses are wider than the human FOV.
 
Nod said:
Thought not.

Let me apologise for making comments based on real world experience of the lens in question rather than hearsay and conjecture.
Click to expand...

Can you speak up Nod, can barely hear you up there on your high horse...

EdBray said:
And he obviously didn't bother to look at the thread link on my post!
Click to expand...

Don't assume anything Ed. I did look and yes, there are some lovely images of a sewage works there. Must put that in my diary as a place to visit when I'm lacking in creativity...

ShrubMonkey said:
Sorry, but that's just not true. If you avoid tilting the lens up or down the Siggy produces the least distorted images I've seen.
Click to expand...

Perspective distortion as Trencheel303 has pointed out - linky

mark_farrell said:
Of course there is perspective distortion - even with lenses, the rules of physics still apply. Anything wider than the human field of view will always look a little strange...
Click to expand...

Which was my initial point - go too wide and things take on an unnatural look than can take over the image :)

Chill out guys - it's only opinions. It's not like they matter on an anonymous internet chatroom... Good job I've got thick skin....;)
 
specialman said:
Don't assume anything Ed. I did look and yes, there are some lovely images of a sewage works there. Must put that in my diary as a place to visit when I'm lacking in creativity...
Click to expand...

;) I was not there through choice, but it was a good test of the 12-24 on the 5DMk2, some of the images would not have been possible with any other lens!
 
Hmmm...

You could have just said "Soz guys, I've looked at the images and in fact I've now tried a Siggy 12-24mm and I agree...it is indeed a very well corrected lens that suffers minimal distortion. Fantastico!" :lol:
 
EdBray said:
;) I was not there through choice, but it was a good test of the 12-24 on the 5DMk2, some of the images would not have been possible with any other lens!
Click to expand...

Glad to hear you don't go lurking around public utility sites out of choice :D:D

woof woof said:
Hmmm...

You could have just said "Soz guys, I've looked at the images and in fact I've now tried a Siggy 12-24mm and I agree...it is indeed a very well corrected lens that suffers minimal distortion. Fantastico!" :lol:
Click to expand...

Was that for me? How dare you assume that i would use the word 'fantastico'!!!!...

...fandabidozy is more my style :D
 
Anorakus said:
I think those pics are great.. they've actually been a real inspiration to me to go out with my 17-40mm!

Did you have to get special permission to go in and take pics?

Amazing how the most unlikely subjects can make great pictures

A.
Click to expand...

Thanks :thumbs:

I did not require permission as I work for the company, albeit I work for the Clean Water function rather than the Waste Water function. The pictures were taken for my HNC Waste Water project that I've only got around to finishing this week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top