Personally I’d like to see some real world reviews as I’m skeptical about its wide open performance at that price and size. It appears roughly the same size as the Fuji and is 2 stops faster and 2mm wider. If even one of stops are usable, especially to the edges of the frame, it will be a winner and I’ll buy one to fill out my wide prime option. But I remain skeptical…
I've seen a couple of reviews (Christopher Frost, others) and as I recall, sharpness wide open was quite good even in the corners. Bokeh seemed reasonably smooth and it gave rather nice sunstars at f/16.
But you can get the Fuji used for less than 1/2 the Sigma cost.
Aug 21, 2025 at 06:09 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
darwinphoto wrote:
I've seen a couple of reviews (Christopher Frost, others) and as I recall, sharpness wide open was quite good even in the corners. Bokeh seemed reasonably smooth and it gave rather nice sunstars at f/16.
But you can get the Fuji used for less than 1/2 the Sigma cost.
I think the Sigma looks great and such a wide and fast lens for $629 is a great price for a newly introduced lens. It will of course by cheaper after it is out for a while and especially so used. The Sigma lens is one of the reasons I am likely to pick up a Fuji XT-5 as it completes what I would like in a travel package. On Sony I am impressed with the 16 f/1.8G, which I thought was very light for such a wide and fast lens, but this Sigma lens pulls off much the same trick for APS-C and as such comes in even lighter, even if not quite as wide either in focal length or aperture when you consider equivalence. Still looks like a great option. I bet it will require quite serious software based distortion correction that happens in camera like the Sony, but that doesn't bother me too much and a price I am willing to pay to keep it so small and with such a fast aperture.
Well, I signed up for the Sigma 12mm/1.4. Its expected early September. Ill be comparing to the Viltrox 13/1.4 and Samyang 12/2 then two of them will go. I've been tempted by the Fuji 14 but wanted wider and faster. I've used the Fuji 10-24 quite a bit and find the 10-12 range useful as a focal length. But wanted something faster to do double duty for astro.
I like the 14mm for architectural interiors, distortion free, faster than 2.8 there wouldn't be enough DoF to be useful. Great for outside stuff too usually at6.4 or 8. Likewise the 9mm Laowa I have which needs stopping down anyway for light fall off
I also have the 12mm f/2 Samyang, bought on a whim as it was cheap secondhand. Used for landscape etc occasionally. Never tried it at f/2
1.4 might suit astro if its good enough otherwise I don't see a need for very fast ultra wide angles.
darwinphoto wrote:
I've seen a couple of reviews (Christopher Frost, others) and as I recall, sharpness wide open was quite good even in the corners. Bokeh seemed reasonably smooth and it gave rather nice sunstars at f/16.
But you can get the Fuji used for less than 1/2 the Sigma cost.
Do you need f/1.4 at that 12mm length? If so, consider the Sigma. (It is an intriguing lens.) If not, the Fujifilm lens is one of their best.
mdude85 wrote:
These days I don't see the point of a very fast ultra wide angle lens unless you are in the niche field of astrophotography.
That would usually be my perspective, too. However, if the claim about this lens are borne out in actual use, its small size, relatively low cost, and 2mm wider coverage could make it a worthy competitor to the 14mm f/2.8… and the larger aperture doesn’t seem to come with any real downsides.
If it were a much larger, more expensive, feature-poor, or optically under-performing lens it would be a different story.
I’m not usually very interested in third party lenses for Fujifilm cameras, but this one is intriguing.
I had the Fuji 14, sold it off a couple of years ago and mildly regret it. Had the Fuji 10-24 and used it all the time, but replaced it with the Sigma 10-18/2.8 for the extra stop for shooting the occasional astro photo. So I am actually quite interested in the 12/1.4. Hmmm.
I have the Fuji 14 and am very impressed by it. Sadly I don't use it much mostly due to the 9mm Nisi which just gives me more of what I want from an UWA lens. But recently I forced myself to use the 14mm and found it was an absolute joy to use providing both auto focus and manual focus with a distance scale.
But the Sigma is interesting mainly because it would be wider and give better sunstars stopped down.
Aug 22, 2025 at 10:02 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mdude85 wrote:
These days I don't see the point of a very fast ultra wide angle lens unless you are in the niche field of astrophotography.
For me I want it as a travel lens and that f/1.4 aperture lets me crop it to the same field of view as an 18mm lens and still have a fairly wide effective aperture. With a 40 MP sensor that leaves you with a 17ish MP file that is very useable for about anything I would want to shoot. For me, I plan to use that as both a 12mm lens and an 18mm lens when cropped and the fast aperture makes it much more capable when cropping. I am hopeful in my travel kit it will serve both as a 12 f/1.4 and an 18 f/2.1. That it can do that and be fairly small and weigh just 235g I think will make it a wonderful travel lens.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That would usually be my perspective, too. However, if the claim about this lens are borne out in actual use, its small size, relatively low cost, and 2mm wider coverage could make it a worthy competitor to the 14mm f/2.8… and the larger aperture doesn’t seem to come with any real downsides.
If it were a much larger, more expensive, feature-poor, or optically under-performing lens it would be a different story.
I’m not usually very interested in third party lenses for Fujifilm cameras, but this one is intriguing.
From an architectural photography point of view I think the big plus of the Fuji 14mm is it's distortion free performance, without software correction. It gives me confidence to 'correct' verticals without worrying that it will clash with distortion correction.
I spent many years using Super Angulons on 5x4 for architecture and there aren't many ultrwides for 'miniature' cameras that are really good enough for that sort of thing. There was nothing much for SLRs wider than 24mm that didn't have horrible distortion. The Fuji 14 was one of the reasons I was happy to get into Fuji.
gyoung143 wrote:
From an architectural photography point of view I think the big plus of the Fuji 14mm is it's distortion free performance, without software correction. It gives me confidence to 'correct' verticals without worrying that it will clash with distortion correction.
I spent many years using Super Angulons on 5x4 for architecture and there aren't many ultrwides for 'miniature' cameras that are really good enough for that sort of thing. There was nothing much for SLRs wider than 24mm that didn't have horrible distortion. The Fuji 14 was one of the reasons I was happy to get into Fuji.
Gerry
That's my experience, too. The 14mm is one of the three core lenses I use for travel photography. (The others are the 27mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/2.)
I frequently use the 14mm for interiors, especially churches and cathedrals. It is also useful in very constricted passages such as in some older city areas.
gdanmitchell wrote:
That's my experience, too. The 14mm is one of the three core lenses I use for travel photography. (The others are the 27mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/2.)
I frequently use the 14mm for interiors, especially churches and cathedrals. It is also useful in very constricted passages such as in some older city areas.
Same sort of usage as me. It's good enough ar 4 and even 2.8 occasionally for hand held use, and any faster would be wasted as too little DoF. No point in carrying the extra bulk and weight. The 9mm Laowa is pretty similar except needs more stopping down.
The 12mm Samyang is MF so not really any bulkier, but has some distortion and again really needs stopping down to 5.6 if you are fussy about the edges.
My interest in the f1.4 of the 12mm Sigma is astro. 12mm is an ideal astro landscape focal and 14 gets tight; but if it can’t render pinpoints at f1.4 or 2, then the faster apertures are pointless having. I also prefer the 12mm focal to 14mm for interiors and travel simply for the extra breathing room, and here I’m usually at f4 minimum, so faster is irrelevant. Distortion isn’t a big concern for astro, but definitely matters for interiors and structures, so this is a key area for how the Sigma performs. So for me, distortion and f2 optical performance are my main concerns, and again, given its size and price I’m skeptical it can deliver both. But close may be enough 🤷🏼
Jack Flesher wrote:
My interest in the f1.4 of the 12mm Sigma is astro. 12mm is an ideal astro landscape focal and 14 gets tight; but if it can’t render pinpoints at f1.4 or 2, then the faster apertures are pointless having. I also prefer the 12mm focal to 14mm for interiors and travel simply for the extra breathing room, and here I’m usually at f4 minimum, so faster is irrelevant. Distortion isn’t a big concern for astro, but definitely matters for interiors and structures, so this is a key area for how the Sigma performs. So for me, distortion and f2 optical performance are my main concerns, and again, given its size and price I’m skeptical it can deliver both. But close may be enough 🤷🏼...Show more →
If its quality turns out to be as claimed, I think that astro photography (or what I think of as “milky way photography”) is going to be a good fit for the Sigma. The f/2/8 maximum aperture on the Fujifilm lens is marginal for that use, and two additions stops let you reduce exposure time to 1/4 of that needed with f/2.8.
I hear you about sometimes wanting something a bit wider than 14mm. I’ve certainly encounter a few situations where something even wider would have worked better than 14mm. On the other hand, using any ultra-wide prime is going to lead to compromises and none will always be exactly right.
I also agree that, at least for non-astro purposes, f/2.8 is plenty big, and that I’m most likely to shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 even in low light.
Other potential pluses for the Sigma 12mm:
1. If you are using the Fujiflm 16-55mm f/2.8 and looking for a wide prime to extend the zoom’s range, the larger difference compared ot 16mm can be attractive.
2. The Sigma, even with it f/1.4 aperture, appears to be no larger than the 14mm f/2.8, does have AF (unlike some 3rd-party options), and may (to be seen) have excellent IQ.
gdanmitchell wrote:
If its quality turns out to be as claimed, I think that astro photography (or what I think of as “milky way photography”) is going to be a good fit for the Sigma. The f/2/8 maximum aperture on the Fujifilm lens is marginal for that use, and two additions stops let you reduce exposure time to 1/4 of that needed with f/2.8.
I hear you about sometimes wanting something a bit wider than 14mm. I’ve certainly encounter a few situations where something even wider would have worked better than 14mm. On the other hand, using any ultra-wide prime is going to lead to compromises and none will always be exactly right.
I also agree that, at least for non-astro purposes, f/2.8 is plenty big, and that I’m most likely to shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 even in low light.
Other potential pluses for the Sigma 12mm:
1. If you are using the Fujiflm 16-55mm f/2.8 and looking for a wide prime to extend the zoom’s range, the larger difference compared ot 16mm can be attractive.
2. The Sigma, even with it f/1.4 aperture, appears to be no larger than the 14mm f/2.8, does have AF (unlike some 3rd-party options), and may (to be seen) have excellent IQ....Show more →
Yup ^^^ I have the Fuji 8-16 and it's remarkably good on distortion, but a relative behemoth by Fuji X standards. It's also excellent optically wide open, but as you mentioned even f2.8 for astro/landscape is marginal and even f2 is a whole lot better; a usable f1.4 would be nirvana here. (In fact Sigma's Fx 14/1.4 is a $1700 behemoth but outstanding optically -- it's so good I considered buying an L mount body just to get that lens for astro!) Back to the 8-16, it is so good optically I am tempted to travel with it anyway, but I also have the 10-24. It's a very good and relatively compact lens, usable wide open across it's focals so has been a great travel wide option for me. Nonetheless, this new lightweight and compact Sigma is intriguing -- fingers crossed!
My gut would say to go with the Sigma. The Fuji is a fine lens, too, but Sigma have not disappointed with their recent lens releases. I'm picking between this new Sigma or the 10-18, for me the zoom is probably the more practical choice since I rarely shoot astro and the image quality is likely good enough for my use.
For my hiking X kit, I started with the 10-24, 16-80, and 70-300. I've since switched to the 16-55 mk II and I'm extremely happy with it. Previously, I liked the 16-24 overlap of the two lenses allowing fewer lens changes. But now I like that range covered by the 16-55 both for the f2.8 and optical quality. So if the 12mm Sigma can extend that range and also serve as my astro lens with its light weight, it will replace the 10-24 in my lightweight kit. So far review are positive at least in the sense of no glaring problems. But I already knew I was going to have to try it myself anyway.
