looking into buying this to use as a real estate lens. looking for some solid feedback on this lens from those who own it.
thanks,
--Matt
Printable View
looking into buying this to use as a real estate lens. looking for some solid feedback on this lens from those who own it.
thanks,
--Matt
Could you perhaps update your post to tell us what brand lens you're asking about, and perhaps update the subject so we know that you're asking about buying it, rather than showing us examples of pictures taken with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
It's Sigma FYI
I saw a nice review on this site.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_12-24_review.htm
I agree with the review: if you get a good copy you will like the lens.
What body are you going to use the lens with?
thank you for the nice link it was helpful
Quote:
Originally Posted by piiooo
im sorry I just dont understand how this is relevant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri
Typically when forum members provide help with lens choices, it is very helpful if we know with what body you plan to use your lens. For instance, if you are planning to use the Sigma 12-24mm on a 1.6x FOVCF (Field of view crop factor - 7D, 50D, Rebel T2i, etc.) camera, the 12-24mm would provide a totally different field of view than when it would be used on a full-frame camera like the 5D Mark II or 1Ds Mark III.
In short, this information helps us better help you. We can give you more relevant information that will help you make informed purchase decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexniedra
ok so tell me. how does changing the body change the lens? I mean what
would the difference if I had a 5D mk.II verses say a 50D?
If you have a crop, you will get lots of folks telling you to get the 10-22 EF-S lens instead. If you have full frame they may tell you this lens is fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri
On a full frame body (eg 5DMkII) this lens is truly 12-24mm 4.5-5.6
On a APS-C body(eg 50D) this lens will be roughly equivalent to 19-38mm 7.1-9.0 (1.6 x longer and 1 1/3 stop slower) , so it will give you still wide but significantly narrower angle, and greater depth of field.
both of those comments are totally irrelevant to what I asked. I wanted people to tell me what they thought about the lens not the conversions and not if they thought another lens was better for me. Honestly unless you have a link to a good review or have actual experience with this lens you have no reason to post on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri
We are trying to help you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri
Matt, focal length conversion factors play a big role in a lens' versitality. The difference between 12mm on full frame and 12mm on a 1.6x FOVCF body is very significant, and the different perspectives achieved by using different bodies will directly influence the lens' functionality for your style of shooting.
I didn't ask if this will work good for me. I am capable of making decisions like that on my own. I asked for solid feedback on what people thought about this lens. Example is it sharp, is CA bad/good, is Vignetting bad/good stuff like that. If I said hey guys do you think a 12-24mm will work good for shooting landscapes? then maybe but the simple fact is that focal length has no effect on what I asked and even if It did 12mm is the widest non fish eye you can get for canon so unless I asked will this lens be good for shooting birds or sports camera body factor's in 0% to my question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri
Unless you are using a crop body, in which case there are some 10 and 11mm choices. Hence the questions. You have few posts, you're new here. We don't yet know what body you shoot with, your experience level, knowledge of lenses, etc.
The previous posters are just trying to help. Canon's 10-22 might be sharper on a crop camera than the 12-24mm is, I don't know. It's possible, just as some people find the 17-55mm sharper than the 24mm zoom L lenses which are designed for full-frame. So in a sense, the body and crop factor are extremely important in lens choice, when a better crop-only alternative exists.
If you want to make the decision on your own, that's fine, but there's no need to jump all over people attempting to go out of their way to help your further. They're looking for a potentially better choice, depending on your needs. There are polite ways to say "I know what I'm doing, just the facts, please." Even more polite would be to express that you're experienced, AND accept the help being offered. You never know, someone might know something you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
Told you.
Wow. I've read a ton of threads in these forums, and I'm consistently
impressed by the lengths contributors will go to in order to be helpful
and courteous (this thread is a shining example). The OP's tone in this thread is such a stunning contradiction to these standards (and even still, people are trying to continue to help!). Open dialogue and exploration of photography is what makes these forums so enjoyable and useful as a learning tool. We are all ignorant, each of us, and that is why we come to places like this to share what we do know and learn what we don't from those around us. Heaven forbid we try to help somebody out. To that end, may I 'suggest' this link as a good place for reviews of the lens you're interested in if the members here aren't cutting the mustard.
WOW!
Edited...I think I may have been ignorant with the previous reply of mine, hence the edit.
I'm afraid you just need to be a little more cosiderate of others, as there are plenty of posters herethat may take offence to the 'tone' used.
[:^)]
I am not asking for lens suggestions. I dont understand what is so hard to grasp about this. I am asking for reviews and input on ONE lens not on personal opinion on a series of lenses. I am very strait forward so I am sorry if I offended anyone, but I get plenty of email's without irrelevant posts with people just trying to spark conversation about stuff I did not ask for.
The problem with your question is that the optical performance of a lens is not uniform across the entire image circle, and consequently, the size of the format has an effect on what potential aberrations you will see. This is why the question of camera body is relevant.
Especially for an ultra-wide angle lens, corner performance is often significantly poorer than the center performance, as is vignetting. However, these issues become less noticeable on a smaller sensor because those aberrations simply fall outside of the sensor's field of view. This is why you cannot simply ask "is it good," because some people won't even see parts of the image circle that the lens is designed to project. Furthermore, the resolution of the sensor itself plays a role in how easily certain aberrations will be apparent, but this is not as significant an issue as the sensor size itself.
Check out the following link...
http://pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=10146
At the bottom, you will find multiple reviews on said lens, you may also simply click on any of the images and from there may find the information or opinions that apparently may be lacking to your initial query.
Cheers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
This is why I only asked from comment from people who own this lens. If you own said lens then you obviously would say oh I use it on my ...... and it works great or its horrible. if I said I had a 5D Mk.II and someone said for example "well it will have some problems on that" I would not take their opinion serious at all because I have no idea if they are speculating or if they have first hand experience.
Please stop posting to "attack" me I dont really care for this. I am simple dumb struck but how a simple question can escalate to a battle of "who is right and who is wrong". The simple fact is that it is my post not yours so I am right because I know what I am asking. If it bothers you so much that I want personal opinion from people with first hand experience feel free to ignore my post.
Yes, I will ignore it, and all your future posts, so do I hope others do too, I've never seen such a rude behaviour in a forum.
I did have that lens, and of course I will not share my experience with such an ungrateful person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt.s.Maneri
DUDE, nobody is attacking you. It is a mandatory question to ask"what body you are using it on" because there is no sense in using a 12-24mm on a 1.6, you should get a apc 10-XXmm or a 11-XXmm and would probably be sharper.If you want to use that lens on a 1.6 crop camerathen for gosh sakes say so, then we knowwhat you want.You are very rude in this thread.
to just settle this pointless debate it is for a 5D MK.II which makes no difference like I stated before. I am NOT looking for opinions on what lens I should buy or use. I am asking those who use this lens what there pro's and con's are from their own first hand experience.
Okay, everybody chill a bit. [:P][D]
Let's get back on track here.
Matt, based on the reviews I've read The 12-24 is soft wide open based on the crops I've seen. At 12mm it isn't very sharp till f/8.0. 20 through 24mm is slightly better, and results will be sharp at f/6.3. Contrast is excellent. Flare is decently controlled. Purple fringing is sometimes noticeable. Distortion is extremely well controlled. Focusing is good, but with Sigma that really depends on the copy. Sigma's HSM is very quiet in this implementation. As far as I've seen it is good, but not great, optically. Wide open apertures on this lens are not unusable, but not too sharp, either. The 12-24 works OK, and it isn't a crappy lens by any means, but it's not exactly superb. Many reviewers and customers found it sharp enough, but many others sold it and were disappointed because of its lack of wide-open sharpness. I haven't myself had first-hand experience, but I've read others' experience. and that's been my impression.
If you have never bought a Sigma EX lens before, there are a couple of things you might want to know. First, the Sigma EX paint is a scratch/smudge/fingerprint magnet. Plan on cleaning it a lot. Second, Sigma is known for so-so Quality Control (QC). Many receive Sigma lenses without working autofocus, or containing foreign objects in the lens, or other problems. Many times it's safer to go Canon. That being said, the Sigma EX lenses are built just as well as the Canon L's.
Since you are using a 5D II I think it would be a nice lens for you, especially for the price. The low-light capabilities of your 5D2 will go to waste with this lens, it's rather slow wide open, but if you're planning on using it outdoors I think it's a fine choice. You might want to consider its sister lens, the Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5. It's a faster, sharper, larger and less expensive alternative.
If you are considering buying the 12-24, you might want to rent it first, here to get some first-hand experience for yourself:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sigma-12-24mm-f4.5-5.6-ex-dg/for-canon
hope this helps.
brendan
I love how Roger at lensrental.com can sum up a lens in a couple hundred words, without making you suffer through all the MTF this, MTF that, distances of this distances of that, what body are you using, what parallel you'll be using it at, will you be shooting landscape, will be shooting portrait, will you be standing on you head, are you left hand or right handed, have you been shooting 4 years or 5 years...
You know real quick if it is a lens you will feel fuzzy or not so fuzzy about. An I don't mean fuzzy as in soft focus, not at f/1.4, not at f/2, not at f/2.8, not at f/4. Not even at f/16...I know, I know diffraction at f/16 ='s fuzzy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Um, 17-40 at lens rentals, does talk about preferred lenses for landscapes, and other options for crop-sensors.
"Roger’s Take:Like the 70-200 f4, this is a reasonably priced, “L” quality lens that is just excellent. I prefer it to the 16-35 f2.8 for landscape and outdoor wide angle shots. Its every bit as sharp, perhaps sharper, and is more flare resistant. Plus it takes more reasonably priced 77mm filters. If you don’t need f2.8, this is the wide angle lens of choice for full frame cameras in my opinion. On a crop frame camera, the 17-55 f2.8 IS offers image quality nearly as good and has the added plus of image stabilization. Its a bit more “fragile” than the 17-40, though."
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidEccleston
Um, this is exactly what I mean...
I was referring to shooting vertically or horizontal. It was an exaggeration to overstate how things get over blown here "occasionally."
OP wanted real world opinions, not what techies read off the internet. I'm sure he could have done that himself. He was a little abrupt in letting everyone know that, but I enjoyed the banter. Thanks!
i don't own this lens. i also don't own the same body you mentioned. didn't know if that was relevant to the discussion, but thought i'd throw it out there.