This topic is in the 2007 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 20075D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
p.1 #15D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
I have used Sigma 12-24s before on 1.3 bodies, but never on full frame. I was never sure if I loved the results of the Sigma, but I think it's because I never had a good copy of this lens!
I picked one up here on the boards, and it is spectacular.
12mm is WIDE. I have to make sure i get my backpack out of the shot when it's at my feet.
It's really unbelievable if you like UWA this is the ultimate setup IMHO.
If you are into landscapes or a realtor I think you would find a lot of value in this setup.
I am working on dialup, so it took me a while to get pics up, they are not exactly art- just pictures for selling my house so far, but the are posted on page 3 of this thread
Edited by xmattkx on Oct 26, 2007 at 07:04 AM GMT
I picked one up here on the boards, and it is spectacular.
12mm is WIDE. I have to make sure i get my backpack out of the shot when it's at my feet.
It's really unbelievable if you like UWA this is the ultimate setup IMHO.
If you are into landscapes or a realtor I think you would find a lot of value in this setup.
I am working on dialup, so it took me a while to get pics up, they are not exactly art- just pictures for selling my house so far, but the are posted on page 3 of this thread
Edited by xmattkx on Oct 26, 2007 at 07:04 AM GMT
Oct 25, 2007 at 05:10 PM
p.1 #25D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
A thread like this one screams for a picture 
...
...Oct 25, 2007 at 05:16 PM
p.1 #35D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
Agreed, I'd like to see too, oh the incredible wideness.
Oct 25, 2007 at 05:19 PM
p.1 #45D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
are you actually able to shoot at 12mm without vignetting? from what i heard, 12-24 on FF sensor can only start at about 17mm without vignetting interfering.
i picked up 12-24 here on buy/sell earlier this year for $375. and as luck would have it, someone was selling a gem mint 17-40L on craigslist just a week later for $400, so i bought that one as well. however, since i was also planning on eventually purchasing 5D, i ended up selling tokina after less than a month. are you telling me that i made a mistake?
i picked up 12-24 here on buy/sell earlier this year for $375. and as luck would have it, someone was selling a gem mint 17-40L on craigslist just a week later for $400, so i bought that one as well. however, since i was also planning on eventually purchasing 5D, i ended up selling tokina after less than a month. are you telling me that i made a mistake?
Oct 25, 2007 at 05:21 PM
p.1 #55D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
The sigma 12-24 is a full frame lens, the Tokina is not.
Oct 25, 2007 at 06:24 PM
p.1 #65D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
Canon Whore wrote:
from what i heard, 12-24 on FF sensor can only start at about 17mm without vignetting interfering.
You are referring to Tokina 12-24 f/4 whereas OP is referring to Sigma 12-24. Tokina is made for crop cameras whereas Sigma is made for FF.
from what i heard, 12-24 on FF sensor can only start at about 17mm without vignetting interfering.
You are referring to Tokina 12-24 f/4 whereas OP is referring to Sigma 12-24. Tokina is made for crop cameras whereas Sigma is made for FF.
Oct 25, 2007 at 06:33 PM
p.1 #85D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
My next and last lens will be a 12-24 for my 5D
will be a 12-24 for my 5DOct 25, 2007 at 06:56 PM
p.1 #95D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
It's not as good as the Canon EF 12-24 f/2.8L. Oh dang! That's the lens they SHOULD have designed! Please post pictures.
Oct 25, 2007 at 07:09 PM
p.1 #105D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
NamiSwan wrote:
You are referring to Tokina 12-24 f/4 whereas OP is referring to Sigma 12-24. Tokina is made for crop cameras whereas Sigma is made for FF.
my bad! should have been paying attention more. that will teach me not to write a post and get my kids dressed at the same time.
Canon Whore wrote
from what i heard, 12-24 on FF sensor can only start at about 17mm without vignetting interfering.my bad! should have been paying attention more. that will teach me not to write a post and get my kids dressed at the same time.
Oct 25, 2007 at 07:26 PM
p.1 #125D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
Here ya go:
http://www.pbase.com/demchinsky/image/86885222/medium.jpg
Larger version here: http://www.pbase.com/image/86885222
http://www.pbase.com/demchinsky/image/85652550/medium.jpg
Larger version here: http://www.pbase.com/image/85652550
The lens is obviously not an L lens in terms of sharpness and contrast, but it is fun to use.
http://www.pbase.com/demchinsky/image/86885222/medium.jpg
Larger version here: http://www.pbase.com/image/86885222
http://www.pbase.com/demchinsky/image/85652550/medium.jpg
Larger version here: http://www.pbase.com/image/85652550
The lens is obviously not an L lens in terms of sharpness and contrast, but it is fun to use.
Oct 25, 2007 at 09:05 PM
p.1 #135D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
Rob Wong wrote:
does anyone have pictures?
A few but nothing very special--looking forward to shooting a lot more with it--really enjoy it. I'm taking it on vacation--probably more architectural (along with my 45 TSE)..
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/84061216/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82994560/original.jpg
processed more
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82779181/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82361747/original.jpg
And one at 16mm f/7.1, others mostly between f/11-f/13 as I recall.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82482477/original.jpg
Edited by picnic on Oct 26, 2007 at 03:12 AM GMT
does anyone have pictures?
A few but nothing very special--looking forward to shooting a lot more with it--really enjoy it. I'm taking it on vacation--probably more architectural (along with my 45 TSE)..
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/84061216/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82994560/original.jpg
processed more
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82779181/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82361747/original.jpg
And one at 16mm f/7.1, others mostly between f/11-f/13 as I recall.
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/image/82482477/original.jpg
Edited by picnic on Oct 26, 2007 at 03:12 AM GMT
Oct 25, 2007 at 09:10 PM
p.1 #145D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
hm, while logically I know those shots are ridiculously wide and practically looking backwards 
, it's hard to tell with these sample photos. I think that with ultrawide shots, you often have to look through the viewfinder to fully appreciate how unbelievably wide you're shooting.
, it's hard to tell with these sample photos. I think that with ultrawide shots, you often have to look through the viewfinder to fully appreciate how unbelievably wide you're shooting.Oct 25, 2007 at 09:12 PM
p.1 #165D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
Ariel Bravy wrote:
hm, while logically I know those shots are ridiculously wide and practically looking backwards :D, it's hard to tell with these sample photos. I think that with ultrawide shots, you often have to look through the viewfinder to fully appreciate how unbelievably wide you're shooting.
Probably so. It does set you on your heels when you first shoot with it LOL. I had been shooting wide mostly with my 24-70 and 20 f/1.8 (have a 15-30, but felt most of the time 24-70 was fine--but got a yen for REAL wide--primarily for interiors and architectural). You actually have to be even more careful about composition, both for good perspective (unless you want unusual perspective) AND keeping your feet out of the photo.
Diane
hm, while logically I know those shots are ridiculously wide and practically looking backwards :D, it's hard to tell with these sample photos. I think that with ultrawide shots, you often have to look through the viewfinder to fully appreciate how unbelievably wide you're shooting.
Probably so. It does set you on your heels when you first shoot with it LOL. I had been shooting wide mostly with my 24-70 and 20 f/1.8 (have a 15-30, but felt most of the time 24-70 was fine--but got a yen for REAL wide--primarily for interiors and architectural). You actually have to be even more careful about composition, both for good perspective (unless you want unusual perspective) AND keeping your feet out of the photo.
Diane
Oct 25, 2007 at 09:21 PM
p.1 #175D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
If you end up with a BAD version of the 12-24 Sigma, send it back and they will fix it. They fixed mine for free. (Yes, I posted this earlier in another thread)
The first time you look through this lens FF it is AMAZING. Watch that your feet aren't in the photo! Now I can do that "big head" cat/dog effect right out of the camera. It's the perfect lens to take that portrait of your "ex".
One thing that is hard to tell just by looking at the pictures without knowing what the scene looks like in person is that the lens really "stretches" the image at the left and right (short) sides.
The first time you look through this lens FF it is AMAZING. Watch that your feet aren't in the photo! Now I can do that "big head" cat/dog effect right out of the camera. It's the perfect lens to take that portrait of your "ex".
One thing that is hard to tell just by looking at the pictures without knowing what the scene looks like in person is that the lens really "stretches" the image at the left and right (short) sides.
Oct 25, 2007 at 09:28 PM
p.1 #185D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
It is hard to tell without knowing the scene, but here are a couple pics used for selling my place here in CR
 |
||
 |
||
|
Oct 26, 2007 at 06:58 AM
p.1 #195D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
Not exactly artistic, but get the point across
|
||
 |
||
|
Oct 26, 2007 at 07:01 AM
p.1 #205D +12-24 = SUPER wide, and I like it!
Finally, just unreal how wide this is
|
||
 |
||
|
Oct 26, 2007 at 07:03 AM