12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM

[Matt.s.Maneri]

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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[gofioamasado]

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.

[Fast Glass]

Please stop posting to "attack" me

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.

[Matt.s.Maneri]

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.

[Brendan7]

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

[Keith B]

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.

[DavidEccleston]

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...

Um, 17-40 at lens rentals, does talk about preferred lenses for landscapes, and other options for crop-sensors.


"Roger&rsquo;s Take:Like the 70-200 f4, this is a reasonably priced, &ldquo;L&rdquo; 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&rsquo;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 &ldquo;fragile&rdquo; than the 17-40, though."

[Keith B]

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...

Um, 17-40 at lens rentals, does talk about preferred lenses for landscapes, and other options for crop-sensors.


"Roger&rsquo;s Take:Like the 70-200 f4, this is a reasonably priced, &ldquo;L&rdquo; 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&rsquo;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 &ldquo;fragile&rdquo; than the 17-40, though."

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!

[znevans]

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.