Sigma 12-24mm on a full-frame camera

Rooster

Rooster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
685
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I have the 24-105mm L for my Canon 5D which is fairly wide on full-frame. I was hankering after the 17-40mm to replicate my much missed Sigma 10-20mm landscape lens on my cropped 450D but my mate pointed me to the Sigma 12-24mm, which is EF fit. Does anyone have this on a full-frame camera? I cannot imagine how much that packs into the frame at 12mm. Is the distortion horrendous?
 
I had one, sold it a few weeks ago as I was moving away from full frame and have regretted it ever since (More so now I have bought a 1D MkIII). It is a great lens for dramatic pictures providing you get a sharp copy.

There are many reports of some copies being soft on one side so it is worth buying from a local dealer and testing the lens prior to purchase. I bought mine from Mifsuds (only 30 miles up the road) and tried it out first, it was a sharpie!

Some 12-24mm images taken on 5D

Some 12-24mm images taken on 5DMkII
 
Looks like you got a good copy there Ed, as those shot's are great, i've often thought about this lens myself since i went full frame, but the many issues i've read about it have really put me off, and my local jessops prices were to high to buy off the shelf (testing first), it's a shame sigma don't pay more attention to detail in their quality control issue's, as i'm sure they must be missing out because of it :|
 
I love mine, and it's uber-wide on a 5D :)

3024998091_48618100ea_o.jpg
 
I very nearly got one of these for my 5D mk II a couple of months back, but chickened out and went for the Canon 17-40L.

It was the quality issues that put me off more than anything. I suspect that most retailers will put a soft copy back on the shelf rather than send back to Sigma, so there would be a lot of bad copies in circulation. Getting a good one means paying top dollar at a bricks'n'mortar shop and being able to try the lens out.

Also, for the sake of a few mm's at the wide-angle end, you're getting Canon L quality, and also a lens that can accept normal filters. (The Sigma has a bulbous front element that won't take filters.)

Finally, I thought that 17-40mm was a more versatile zoom range.

Best of luck if you go for the Sigma, it is capable of some impressive results :thumbs:

A.
 
I have one for my D700 and I love it. It is probably on my camera 80% of the time now. There is some distortions in the corners @12mm but what do you expect on full frame! :) I paid £360 @ Jessops last christmas but I think they have gone up alot since.

The only downside is you would not be able to fit filters to the front but I have had mine a year and not missed them. I recently bought a cheap Sigma 24mm so if I want to use filters I will put that on (namely a ND110).

3866589839_83a713d64f.jpg


3370533251_d101890718.jpg
 
Anorakus said:
I very nearly got one of these for my 5D mk II a couple of months back, but chickened out and went for the Canon 17-40L.

It was the quality issues that put me off more than anything. I suspect that most retailers will put a soft copy back on the shelf rather than send back to Sigma, so there would be a lot of bad copies in circulation. Getting a good one means paying top dollar at a bricks'n'mortar shop and being able to try the lens out.

Also, for the sake of a few mm's at the wide-angle end, you're getting Canon L quality, and also a lens that can accept normal filters. (The Sigma has a bulbous front element that won't take filters.)

Finally, I thought that 17-40mm was a more versatile zoom range.

Best of luck if you go for the Sigma, it is capable of some impressive results :thumbs:

A.
Click to expand...

Point one, 5mm is a massive difference at the wide end, hence why some ultrawide zoom lenses only have a small zoom range 11-16mm for example.

Point 2, Not if you have a 24/28mm-something zoom as well.

The 12-24mm with a 24-70L and a 70-200L covers a wide range of focal lengths and a 12-24mm with a 24-105L and a 100-400L covers even more.

On FF the 12-24mm lens is not really a walk around lens, but it is the widest rectilinear zoom lens you can buy that will cover a FF sensor.
 
Just to add my 50p's worth - I bought Ed's lens - and it is stunning and great fun on a full frame - those extra mm do make a BIG difference. I have a 16-35 as well - both are very different creatures. Would not use the 12-24 all the time but if you want to go uber wide its excellent. (sorry Ed - you cant have it back!)

Rog
 
RogWarham said:
Just to add my 50p's worth - I bought Ed's lens - and it is stunning and great fun on a full frame - those extra mm do make a BIG difference. I have a 16-35 as well - both are very different creatures. Would not use the 12-24 all the time but if you want to go uber wide its excellent. (sorry Ed - you cant have it back!)

Rog
Click to expand...

Rog, if you do decide to get rid of it, give me first refusal please?
 
An example of mine with the Sigma 12-24 on a 5D:

IMG_2424-Edit.jpg


A nice lens to use, slightly bulky but is capable of achieving some good results.
 
I have a Sigma 12-24mm on a D700 and love it. I am getting into urban photography and the possibilities are enormous with a rectilinear 12mm on a FX camera. Loving the freedom of a wideangle, but still learning.

SW2_0983_800.jpg


Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top