Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              5       6       end
  

Archive 2004 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated

  
 
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


--------------------------UPDATED---------------------------

After about a month of shooting the Sigma 12-24mm I have become quite comfortable with my Sigma 12-24mm. It is time that I update this thread.

The Sigma is quite a good performer. For an ultra-wide angle lens it's performance is world-class when used on an APS sensor DSRL.

The primary criteria by which I judge ultra-wide angle lenses are: chromatic abberation, vignetting, tendency to flare & ghost, sharpness, and barrel distortion. In every category the Sigma is a great performer, in fact notably superior to prime 14mm lenses. The only thing missing on the Sigma is the large aperture.

Chromatic Abberation is the boogeyman of wide-angle lenses. The Sigma is remarkably free of CA. In fact I do not compensate for it despite having the tools to do so. This is great news for user who like shooting JPEG, or using tools other than Adobe Camera RAW to process their RAW files. One less step in the workflow.

Vignetting is minimal on my Fuji S2 Pro, even wide open; and should be minimal on any 1.5X or 1.6X sensor DSLR. I'd be interested to see how a Canon 1Dmk2 performs with the Sigma, it would be nice to have that extra 15 degrees of FOV.

Ghosting isn't a problem with this lens, contrast remains high even when shooting into the sun. Flare is an intermittent problem and thus far has only appeared in three pictures out of hundreds that I have shot. For those three pictures it was easy enough to recompose and shoot, avoiding the flare. When flare did occur it manifested as one or two spots.

Sharpness is the contentious point with this lens. IMHO it performs admirably. On the Canon side there is no equivelent lens, so there is nothing to compare it to. On the Nikon side the 12-24mm Nikkor exhibits equivelent sharpness.

Barrel Distortion is extremely well controlled on the Sigma, enough so that architectural images require little or no correction. To the extent that there is barreling it is "simple" barreling, easily fixed with a plug-in, or panorama tools. The 12-24mm Nikkor exhibited "moustache" distortion, which is much harder to correct.

Focusing on the Sigma is fast and silent. The feel of the lens is very solid; the zoom and focus rings are nicely damped, they almost feel like a manual-focus lens.

Here are all of my Sigma 12-24mm photos posted in this thread, consolidated for easy browsing:

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/real_estate_arch_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/times_square_2_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/house_architecture_01_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/architecture_01_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/interior_architecture_01_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/DSCF0001-HDR_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/cellar_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/room_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/old_glory_full_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/old_glory_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/salon_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/galley_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/dinette_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/crew_thumb.jpg

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/washer_thumb.jpg


Edited by Sectarian on Apr 07, 2004 at 10:06 AM GMT



Jan 08, 2004 at 05:44 PM
sdai
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


I'm very interested in your comparison, Mark ... I'd probably still choose the nikon for its constant f/4 though.


Jan 08, 2004 at 11:54 PM
jmcfadden
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Mark

it seems that Sigma builds in this warmer render in all their newer lenses , sorta an 81a all the time

I love my 12-24 it is just magic for me

J



Jan 09, 2004 at 01:02 AM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Comparison photo: I took the same shot from approximately the same spot. Here are 100% crops from both lenses and the origianal view. The full view image is from the Sigma.

Both shot on a Fuji S2 Pro, Raw file, 6 megapixels, processed with Adobe Photoshop RAW. Shot at 1/45 second, f/5.6, ISO 400 @ 12.0mm, fluorescent white balance.

I wish I could have shot at ISO 100 but the lighting wouldn't allow it. I wanted to prevent camera shake.

Here is the original view:
http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/original_thumb.jpg


And are the 100% crops:
http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/sigmanikon_thumb.jpg

J-
I know you get terrific results from the Nikon. The surprise to me is that they both seem to outperform the Tamron 14mm in every way except being an f/2.8 - The Nikon is almost incognito it is so slender, you'd never guess what a wide-angle lens it is.

Mark



Edited by Sectarian on Jan 25, 2004 at 06:13 PM GMT



Jan 09, 2004 at 01:17 AM
jmcfadden
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Mark

honestly they both look good , but the weight really makes a difference and I love the 77mm mount for my Lee Filters and polarizers (only above 20mm for that tho ), and the solid f4 as I knew I would be doing low light landscapes and stuff like that but for you use it is not that significant, good luck with it , I hope you have better luck than your last purchase

J



Jan 09, 2004 at 01:26 AM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


J-

The Fuji is certainly alot better than the Kodak, in the case of the 14n no glass could make it better. The salesman instantly made fun of the 14n: he asked "don't like having moire in almsot every image?" .

I also prefer the Fuji to the D1x...the X really does lack low-light capabilities, not as much as the Kodak, but it did.

The Fuji amazes me in how noise-free it is at ISO 400.

Used on the Fuji, either one of these wide zooms is actually better than Nikon's 20mm prime, much less the Tamron 14mm. The 20mm is going back to B&H for a credit.

Nikon's 28mm f/2.8 prime is extraordinairy, but the 20mm has more CA and isn't as sharp as either of these wide zooms.

M

Edited by Sectarian on Jan 09, 2004 at 11:42 PM GMT



Jan 09, 2004 at 01:29 AM
sdai
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Very impressive comparison ... especially considering the Sigma is almost half price ... I've given up shooting ultra wide stuff for quite some time ... in fact, I probably need only TWO lenses for the stuff I'm doing now - the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/2.8 ... I'm going to Alaska in Sep. and I'll probably bring a 18/2.8 with me.


Jan 09, 2004 at 01:42 AM
blake
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Thanks for the info. I'm in the market for one of these lenses, too, and this is a big help.


Jan 09, 2004 at 09:49 PM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


I took the plunge, opting for the Sigma which I ordered today. I'd be happy with either lens.


Jan 09, 2004 at 11:48 PM
cinnabull
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


For joe public, like myself there is nowt to choose between these images. I think that everyone but the most discerning pro would be pleased with either.

However, tell me if I am imagining it, but look at those flowers in the top left of the crops. The yellow and green things, the green bits look quite a bit sharper and more distinguishable on the sigma than the nikon. Anyone else think this??

stuart



Jan 10, 2004 at 04:13 PM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Stuart-

I see what you are talking about. Of course this wasn't a controlled test. I only shot at 12mm because that is the focal length I'm buying this lens for. The camera was set to manual exposure, and the RAW files were rendered with the same settings. The main difference is that my position changed slightly between shots.

Still I see richer blues, greens and yellows in the Sigma. Overall the Nikon might have let a bit more light through at the same settings, resulting in a brighter overall image. This could explain the weaker colors in the Nikon image.

Also scrutinizing the image further reveals more chromatic abberation in the Nikon than in the Sigma. Look at the black on white of the #27 sign.

Edited by Sectarian on Jan 10, 2004 at 05:06 PM GMT



Jan 10, 2004 at 04:25 PM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Here is a more thorough comparison of the chromatic aberration between the two lenses. With scrutiny it is clear that the Sigma beats the Nikon. It is likely this is because the Sigma is a full-frame 35mm lens, so the 1.5x crop factor avoids the fringing that occurs near the edge of a lens. That seems to be the trade-off for having a larger, constant aperture on the smaller, lighter Nikon.

Here is a side-by-side comparison. These are 500% enlargements @12mm.

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/niksig_thumb.jpg



Here are larger crops:

This is the lighting fixture from the upper left area of the image:

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/nik1_thumb.jpg

Nikon 12-24mm @12mm, 500% enlargement






http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/sig1_thumb.jpg

Sigma 12-24mm @12mm, 500% enlargement







This is the #27 sign, a bit further towards the center of the image:

http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/nik2_thumb.jpg






http://www.imagicdigital.com/photos/sig2_thumb.jpg

Sigma 12-24mm @12mm, 500% enlargement






Edited by Sectarian on Jan 25, 2004 at 05:52 PM GMT



Jan 10, 2004 at 04:49 PM
cinnabull
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Mark,

I am a complete numbnuts with technical terms, what is chromatic abberation?. I've seen plenty of comments about this but am completely in the dark as to what it is!!.

As you probably already know, I've just got my first digi, a d100, and I think, looking at the above, you've just sold me a sigma. Now then, how about doing the same for the 28-70 2.8, both makes, and the 70-200 vr vs 120-300, cos they are on my shopping list as well when finances allow!!. I much prefer seeing results like these, which are 'real', than looking at figures, graphs etc which simply confuse people like me, (thickies), but I would bet there are a great number of others like me. Apicture is a better test to me than all the figures and graphs and teccy terms. Well done I say.

I also notice you had dire results with a 14n, was there any reason you chose fuji over d100??

stuart



Jan 10, 2004 at 05:12 PM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Stuart-

Chromatic abberation is the purple, yellow, blue or red fringing you see in areas of sharp contrast, usually becoming more pronounced towards the edges/ corners of an image.

I chose the Fuji over the D100 because with RAW files the Fuji renders more detail than any other 6 megapixel camera, enough to justify rendering 12 megapixel files. It's not a true 12 megapixel camera, but it definitely offers more detail.

The Fuji also has a larger RAW file buffer, limited to four shots; the Fuji's RAW buffer holds seven shots. That matters alot to me since I shoot RAW all the time.



Jan 10, 2004 at 05:19 PM
cinnabull
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Mark,

Cheers for that, now I know what c/a is. Like you say, there is a lot more purple around the nikon shot than the sigma.

I wonder if it depends on individual lenses, as I have read elsewhere that the same model lens has produced super results for one person, and cr@p for someone else.

Do you think the other sigmas I mentioned above will be as good as their nikon counterparts??. I do hope you are able to do a test along similar lines with them, as pictures speak louder than figures/graphs etc, to me at least.

stuart



Jan 10, 2004 at 05:36 PM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Stuart-

I don't know about the other lenses. Except for the Nikon 24-120mm VR I'm inclined to go with prime lenses because of the kind of shooting I do (alot of architecture).

Next time I go to B&H I'll try out a bunch of lenses, but parking in NYC costs alot, so on my last trip I had to limit myself to what I needed.

Mark



Jan 10, 2004 at 05:43 PM
cinnabull
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


I wonder why manufacturers make such small zooms. I mean a 12-24, jeez thats a 1x zoom. When I bought my body, Al, the seller, let me try his nikon 12-24. I would suspect that a few paces forward or backward would have covered the zoom range.

I do more video work than still, and I have a broadcast spec zoom thats 15x, with an extender that effectively takes it to 30x, and there are much bigger ones out there as well. The technology is there, are manufacturers limiting us to small ratio zooms so we have to buy more glass I wonder.

stuart



Jan 10, 2004 at 05:54 PM
jmcfadden
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


Stuart

Wide angle zooms are very , very hard to engineer, it is not at all analogus to the narrower angle /longer focal length lenses , even 2mm on the wide end gives a bigger difference than you would imagine , as for video vs still , well there is no comparison, video is rendered at a much smaller resolution
J



Jan 10, 2004 at 11:26 PM
Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


J-

You are exactly right. Creating a lens that can resolve photographic detail is much more challenging than creating a video lens. My Canon GL-2 has a 20X, f/2.0 optical zoom, but if you shoot a still photo with it (1.5 megapixles), CA is plainly visible. At video resolution you can't see any.

You remember the Tamron 14mm, how much glass it needed in order to achieve f/2.8...plus that lens had more CA than either of these zooms, even though it was a full-frame lens used on a 1.5X DSLR. I think there is a relationship between CA and the maximum aperture of a lens. For example, Nikon's 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 lens has less CA than the 17-35mm f/2.8, despite being less expensive. Nikon's 20mm f/2.8 prime also had more CA.

On the other hand CA isn't even a big deal when rendering RAW files with Phtoshop Camera RAW so I don't consider it a deciding factor. I'm much more interested in whether a lens is prone to flare & ghosting, especially at the wide end.

I really do have to make a list of all the lenses I'd like to try, get over to B&H, and take some test shots to compare.

Mark



Jan 11, 2004 at 02:38 AM
cinnabull
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated


J,

I realise video is recorded in a lower resolution, however its the technology I was getting at to make larger ratio zooms. I believe this technology is available, I mean, if there was an adapter available to put my broadcast video lens on a still camera, I would bet the results would be equal to, if not better than the equivalent still lens. I get top quality video at a much lower resolution than what a still camera is capable of, now if I could put the resolving power of my lens on a still camera, I bet the results would be spectacular. I may be wrong, but that is what I think would be the outcome. I must stress here, there is quite a noticable visual difference in the pictures produced on a broadcast spec and professional spec video lens. Far more than in the comparison done by Mark.

I have read with interest your previous posts, advising quality glass is paramount in producing the best results. Based on my experience with video, I would subscribe to that theory, however looking at the results on this thread has put a bit of doubt in my mind when considering still lenses. Maybe the difference is greater in video lenses than still, who knows.

M,

Cant wait for your further tests!!. Keep up the good work.

stuart

Edited by cinnabull on Jan 11, 2004 at 11:27 AM GMT

Edited by cinnabull on Jan 11, 2004 at 11:52 AM GMT



Jan 11, 2004 at 05:45 AM
1
       2       3              5       6       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3              5       6       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.