 |
|
|
contaxs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Half of this lens is great. Very sharp for the money. Very little distortion.
The right side of my images are terrific.
|
|
Cons:
|
The left half of my images are soft. I returned my first copy to Samy's (with some grumbling on their part) and the second was just the same. Good on the right, bad on the left.
|
|
|
It sure would be nice if Sigma had just made a good 12mm prime and let it go at that. For anything beyond 12mm I use my 17-40L. And it's too bad Canon doesn't offer a really good 20mm prime.
|
|
 Jan 12, 2005
|
|
JLeber
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $699.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra Wide Angle for Crop or Full size Cameras, barely no Distortion, built very solid, HSM, sharp, nice Contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
Vignetting when Hood is attached @ 18+ mm, Rear filter Design - Front Filter only 82mm (expensive!) with lens hood (vignetting >18mm)
|
|
|
When you're using a crop Camera (in my case a 20D) a 24-70 lens is no langer wide angle, so I had the choice of 17-40L, EF-S 10-22 and the Sigma 12-24.
The 17-40L would have given me just 7mm over my 24-70L. The 10-22 is EF-S so I would'nt be able to use it with a full size SLR or DSLR.
I've had a Sigma Lens before (24-70 2.8 DF DG) and it was not what you would call a perfect Experience: Soft @2.8, Slow AF.
F4.5-5.6 is not the real deal (f4.5 only available @12mm), but the lens is quite nice. IMO the Filter Design is pure Crap and the only Reason for the 4/5, otherwise it would have been 5/5
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2004
|
|
MichaD
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 407
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $730.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
WIDE WIDE WIDE, lack of distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
only rear mount filters, flare (but what ultra wide doesn't?)
|
|
|
If you need to go wide on a 10D this is basically your only option. I don't mind the slow aperture at these focal lengths. Need to watch out for flare a bit as usual for ultra wides but it's well controlled. AF is decent but sometimes misses the point. Amazing low distortion. Rest of image quality is good although not spectacular. Does it really need to be a zoom? A prime might have been cheaper or better quality.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2004
|
|
Fundy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 820
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide baby. Pretty dang sharp. Super rectalinear. No bowing here.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bulbous and slow aperture, constant f/4 would be better
|
|
|
Mine seems to be a good sample. It looks like there is some variation, test your lens before you buy it, or be able to return it if it sucks.
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2004
|
|
Bruford
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 88
|
|
Review Date: Oct 28, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This is a great lens!! Works great with my 10D's 1.6 X factor. Sharp and clear. Nice finish on lens and the build quality is great. Well worth the $$
|
|
Cons:
|
Can not mount filter to lens. Other than that no problem.
|
|
|
I highly recomend this lens. It is a great value!!
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2004
|
|
Lunatique
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 10, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 928
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
It sure is wide! Feels quite sturdy.
|
|
Cons:
|
Stupid rear filter design. All my other lenses are sharper.
|
|
|
If you want wide, this will give you wide. In fact, for those that shoot the Canon 1 series, your only choice for ultrawide zoom is this one. I don't use this lens very often, because it's rare for me to need to shoot that wide, but when I need to get an entire room into a shot, or need anything wider than the 28mm end of my Tamron 28-75 DI, my only choice is this Sigma.
The build is quite sturdy. No complaints there.
The image quality is middle of the road--nothing to write home to mom about, but not a dog either. The distortion isn't bad at all, unless you have people at the edge of your shot--then you'll notice the horizontal stretch--but that's just how ultrawide lenses are--you can't get around it.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2004
|
|
brn68
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Location: Austria
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
feels good, solidly built, very reliable. distortion negligible. sharp. good contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
front lens is very sensitive to dust.
|
|
sharper than anything i know in this wide angle range.
wait - i don't really now anything comparable to this lens. a few years ago this lens would have been beyond dreams.
it's a little heavy, but gives the 10D w/ BiG ED3 a nice balance.
the front lens is very sensitive to dust. can be a problem you not only buy it for looking at it (which is very nice though), but take it with you to the nasty world outside. well, be a little careful and this lovely lens will definitely broaden your artistic spectrum.
this lens is worth every cent - and every ounce: as my 100-400L, i bought this lens by weight: every gram a euro 
have fun,
bernhard peball
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2004
|
|
SouthFla
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 697
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, not too heavy, sharp, WIDE, great on a MKII!
|
|
Cons:
|
None, yet!
|
|
|
I couldn't be happier with this lens. I like this lens so much that this is actually the only time I have wanted to post a review. Perhaps I just got lucky with a "good" copy, but regardless this lens is wonderful.
I made an even trade for the lens with my 17-40L, so I was a little concerned if I had made a mistake. But after two days of shooting with it, I couldn't be more pleased.
Shooting on a 1dMKII, there is virtually no barrel distortion, the lens is sharp throughtout the range and frame, the CA is virtually non-exsitent. I really love doing landscape work, and I already can't imagine how I lived so long without it.
It was tuff giving up the "L" glass, but I'd do it again in a flash. The Sigma now perfectly compliments my 24-70L, 70-200ISL, and 100-400L.
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2004
|
|
njezzo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 16, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2004
|
|
eeprete
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3733
|
|
Review Date: Sep 19, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide angle that will work with 1.6, 1.3 and FF bodies; Excellent Sigma glass
|
|
Cons:
|
Gel filters; 82mm filter size; big; sharpness on some copies; Distortion when not parrallel to the ground (as with any WA).
|
|
|
All in all an excellent lens if you need a real wide angle on a full frame, or just a wide lens on the 1.6 crop factor bodies. However, if you don't fully need that 12mm, the 17-40 4L is a much better and more consistent lens for the money.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Aug 28, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The only real wide angle lens for a dslr.Very sharp,perfect for landscapes.Balances well on 10D.Looks and handles great.
Distortion is hardly noticable.
|
|
Cons:
|
Awkward to use filters,but can be overcome.
|
|
|
A perfect lens for landscapes and general photography.
Stays on my 10D 90% of the time.
82mm polariser can be rested in the petal hood with care,no problems from 16mm upwards.
Well done Sigma,a truley remarkable lens.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2004
|
|
chechuprisma
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2004
Location: Spain
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $672.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
contrast, sharpness, high focusing speed
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, canīt add front filter in you donīt make an attachement
|
|
|
It is a really fantastic zoom. I use it at architectuauarl and lifestyle pics and is amazing. If you use it on 1.6x crop dslr, you can put the black ring on the petal hood without vignetting.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2004
|
|
RikWriter
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2438
|
|
Review Date: Jul 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Incredible wide angle, great sharpness in good light, good durability.
|
|
Cons:
|
No way to use a screw-on filter, shadows with built-in flash.
|
|
|
I was considering this product and the Canon 17-40L and tried them both beforehand, but I simply didn't notice any sharpness difference in the sample pics and the difference in the field of view between 12 and 17mm was dramatic. This lens is perfect for landscapes, which is what I bought it for, and is wonderfully sharp, especially in good lighting.
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb for indoors and architectural shots
Excellent build quality
Very sharp considering how wide it is and the price
Can be used on digital or 35mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Fairly heavy (but compact - length wise)
Inability to use front filters
|
|
|
I am very impressed with this lens. I bought it as the equivalent to my 19-35mm on 35mm, to use with my Canon EOS300D. It easily out performs my previous 19-35mm lens, a Tokina, but of course at 2.5 times the price, it should!
Well, I am very pleased with the Sigma. It is amazing on 35mm, but for goodness sake be careful if you fake shots in portait as tilting it down only slightly includes your toes!!!!
Yes, others have said about lack of crispness around the edges, but come on folks, get real! This is a Ģ500 lens that we are talking about and it is extremely wide. It does the job extremely well in my opinion and if you want something that is super sharp at this focal length, then expect to pay a few thousand pounds, not 500...........
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2004
|
|
Mirdita Havlar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 18, 2004
Location: Russia
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $645.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
The widest lens for Canon ever made.Thanks Sigma! Pretty fast AF, not too heavy. Surprisingly small distortion.
|
|
Cons:
|
Front element moves when zooming. No front filter mount (gelatine only). Acceptable sharpness only at f11 and up.
|
|
|
Giving you 12mm-wide focus it is practically a prime with nice and solid look and feel. Despite of some cons I regard it as a must heave lens to accompany any digital SLR.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2004
|
|
Henri
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 25, 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 25, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Widest angles available, good to excellent optical quality and very low distortion for this kind of wide-angle-zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
Huge bulky construction, filter-system tricky
|
|
|
I have excellent results with the new Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n. Every wide-angle-construction of this type needs to be stopped down to at least f8-11 for critical works. Great lens for landscape, architecture and nature.
If used on D1x (or similiar) great wide-angle-value, equivalent to Nikon 12-24 at lower price.
|
|
|
May 25, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
104
|
273447
|
Jan 15, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
94% of reviewers
|
$632.87
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.88
|
8.79
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
