Anyone experiences with the Sigma 12-24mm Zoom

Since I won't be giving up my film SLRs any time soon even though I took the
plunge and bought a DSLR that uses the same lenses, I find that I need a
real wide angle lens for the DSLR that's at least as wide as the 19-35mm
Zoom that I've used for over a year on the film bodies. With a 1.5x factor
on the DSLR, a 12-24 works like an 18-36 on the film bodies and is
(essentially) the same range as the 19-35 PLUS it would give me a 12-24 on
the film bodies for super wide angle shots.

Another possibility is a Sigma 14mm fixed focal length which is actually
$100 less than the zoom.

I won't buy (yet) a digital-only lens so any of those are out of the
question right now unless there's a really compelling reason to do that.

Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).

TIA
Norm

Bubbabob wrote:
"Norm Dresner" wrote:


Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).



I love it (Sigma 12-24). No problems or shortcomings at all. Best $600 I've
spent in some time.


I'm having a great time with mine. Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
lens that wide. It is a sturdy piece of equiptment.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:11:26 GMT, "Norm Dresner"
wrote:

Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share on the Sigma 12-24,
14mm, or any other comparable lenses. (FWIW, my system is Nikon).

I have the Sigma 12-24mm in Nikon mount. I haven't tried
printing anything larger than 8x12" from any of my shots with it,
but I'm satisfied with the sharpness in scans.

Unfortunately, the sample variation on this lens is pretty high.
After borrowing my copy, a friend of mine purchased one, only
to exchange it twice until he was happy with his. Chromatic
aberrations and geometric distortion seem to be well controlled.

On a 35mm film camera, the 12mm field of view is pretty wild,
and requires a fair amount of thought to use. If you are
the slightest bit off true with your composition, it will
spoil the shot.

One other issue to note. The lens comes with a standard 82mm
lens cap and a "collar." On a film camera you have to remove the
collar or suffer extreme vignetting. Supposedly you can mount
82mm filters on the collar, but I'm told that even thin filters
vignette on a 1.5x dSLR.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Paul Furman wrote:

Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
lens that wide.

It's not.
--

Stacey

"Bubbabob" wrote in message
. 3.30...
Stacey wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Crazy flare (sun spot) effects pointing anywhere near the sun but
I think that's just any inherent in lens that wide.

It's not.

It is.

Pentax SMC 15mm f2.8 A. I don't see any flare to speak of...

OK, not a 12mm, but as wide on 35mm as the Sigma is on a cropped sensor,
where it will still flare. So good design, a fixed Fl rather than a zoom,
and / or Pentax's very much better coating certainly mean that flare is not
_inevitable_ in a wide lens.

Not to say that I don't think the Sigma is a remarkable piece of work for
the price, however, and if I used a cropped sensor DSLR I'd probably
consider getting one.


Peter

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:02:08 +0000, Bubbabob wrote:

Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
lens that wide.

It's not.

It is.

Say no to Sigma!

Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
lens that wide.

It's not.

It is.


Say no



Facts anyone?

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:04:53 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:


It's not.

It is.


Say no



Facts anyone?

What facts?

r �לבומיה wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:04:53 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:



It's not.

It is.


Say no



Facts anyone?


What facts?

Facts about flare causes in general (too many uncoated elements AFAIK)
and/or performance on the Sigma vs others.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Bubbabob wrote:

Stacey wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

Crazy flare (sun spot) effects
pointing anywhere near the sun but I think that's just inherent in any
lens that wide.

It's not.

It is.

Hmm my 11-22 ZD doesn't do it. Matter of fact even my MC'd soviet medium
format fisheye doesn't, but then again the single coated one did this
badly.

"Crazy flare sun spots" are caused by low quality coatings, period.
--

Stacey