p.2 #1 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
Sectarian wrote:
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.
Err...what does this mean when used on a standard non digital body like the F100/F5 or what have you? It canŽt possibly mean that you get a working 12-24 mm zoom with no vigneting or I assume that at 12 mm youŽll get seriously dark edges, no?
p.2 #2 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
Anders-
Apparently performance on a full-frame camera is quite good. I cannot provide you with an example, but I know it works. I was looking at some example photos last week from a Canon 1Ds but I can't seem to find the link. They looked good though, even at 12mm.
p.2 #3 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
I just received my new lens. The first thing I've done is check for barrel distortion. Although present, there is very little of it, and it is of the 'simple' variety, meaning it is easily corrected. There is so little distortion the images could be used as-is, even for architecture. All this is at 12mm on an APS (1.5x) format DSLR. As soon as I have a chance I'll test it out at each focal length, but as it stands I'm very excited about the distortion characteristics of this lens. I don't know how Sigma is pulling it off, but this lens is truly top-notch quality.
Edited by Sectarian on Jan 13, 2004 at 04:19 PM GMT
p.2 #5 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
Here's a test shot. I purposely included the sun to test for flare and ghosting. All I can say is: 'Where is it?". What a result, the 20mm f/2.8 Nikon prime I sent back didn't produce an image like this. Probably the best result I've ever seen with me backyard-backlit test.
kudos the the Fuji for resolving everything from the blue sky down to the shadow under the tree behind the fence. Fuji RAW files afford at least 3 extra stops of dynamic range versus shooting in JPEG. 10.5 stops of total range, based on tests I've seen online (sorry no link).
p.2 #6 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
that is a fine piccy, especially into the sun. i think i'm sold when i can afford one!!.
wonder how the 28-70 2.8 compares with the nikon as well, cos i will eventually get that focal length. in fact, that will probably be my first purchase as i will probably use that range more than 12-24.
still reading my manual tho, trying to figure out all these settings. i think i will get Thom Hogans guide, i believr its available on cd
p.2 #7 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
Mark
what is the Max ap of the Sigma, and can you mount filter rigs to it , ie does it have a threaded front mount, or the silly little drop in gel thingy in the rear of the lens?
thx
J
I might sell the Nikkor and I can use the difference to get something else
p.2 #8 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
J-
It's f/4.5-5.6 - yes you can attach a filter to the front, but it needs to be 82MM ($$$$) but then again 77mm filters aren't cheap either. Filters will cause vignetting at 12-14mm. On the other hand, because the filter threads onto a removable 'barrel extension', you can slide off the filter instead of having to unscrew it & that's rather convenient.
Yes it still has that gel filter thingy in the back as well. I doubt I'll ever use it.
The real story is that I'm blown away by the quality of the optics, I wasn't expecting a lens that can handle shooting into the sun.
p.2 #9 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
Thanks Mark , man I really wish it were solid f4 or even 4.5.........I have the Lee Filter System at my disposal so all I need is the proper ring to attach it
p.2 #10 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
another important thing to consider is the sigma may not be cheaper.. the price of a lens is not the price on the box.. its the price you paid for it - the pirce you sell it for.
good nikon glass holds its value. sigma dosent... just go look on ebay. you can pick up sigma used lens for nothing while there nikon equivilants hold there value farily well.
p.2 #11 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
nikqu wrote:
another important thing to consider is the sigma may not be cheaper.. the price of a lens is not the price on the box.. its the price you paid for it - the pirce you sell it for.
good nikon glass holds its value. sigma dosent... just go look on ebay. you can pick up sigma used lens for nothing while there nikon equivilants hold there value farily well.
I'd agree with your assessment, if my hobby was collecting lenses. To me the value of lens has nothing to do with its retail, or resale price. The value is in whether it helps me get the photo I want. The value is in how much post-processing is required to perfect a photo. In that regard the Nikon 12-24mm is the inferior lens for my application. I don't need a constant f/4 and I don't use filters except polarizers and you can't use those at 12mm.
The Nikon 12-24mm presents several problems that require a lot of post-processing to fix. The Nikon exhhibits 'moustache' distortion, which is hard to correct. CA is considerably worse than with the Sigma. Light sources tend to 'bloom' or project star patterns with the Nikon, an effect the Sigma is amazingly immune to. The Sigma exhibits less lens flare & is suitable for shooting into the sun.
I don't care if the Sigma is worth $1 the day after I buy it, I'd rather use the Sigma than the Nikon. Look at my profile & you'll see it is the only Sigma I own. I tried 2 separate samples of the Nikon, on my own camera, and scrutinized the test shots at home before making my decision. I'll make back the cost of the Sigma many times over this year alone, so saving a couple hundred bucks in resale value sometime in the future doesn't mean anything to me at all. That is a really poor way to judge a lens' worth, IMHO.
Edited by Sectarian on Jan 16, 2004 at 05:39 PM GMT
p.2 #13 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
went wrote:
The bottom line which lens puts more money in your bank, that is net after all costs.
went
Exactly, Went. I want to add that even if I shot photos as a passtime or hobby I'd want a lens that perfoms better (for my needs), as opposed to a lens that holds its resale value better . FWIW this is the first Sigma I've felt is worth owning.
p.2 #14 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
This photo is also posted in the architecture forum, but it is the first real test of the Sigma 12-24mm so I'm putting it here as well:
I used a three-shot bracket, shooting in RAW, to capture the full dynamic range of this scene. Sharpness is excellent from edge to edge, and there is zero chromatic abberation, vignetting or noise. I did have to retouch two lens flare spots, but they were small and easy to fix.
Sigma 12-24mm, Fuji S2 Pro, 3-shot HDR image, (1.5 sec., 4 sec. & 10 sec. exposures) - f/8.00 @ 12mm, RAWs rendered in Photoshop CS.
p.2 #17 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
Mark - awesome shot. All ambient lighting or did you add some kicker lighting? First rate!
BTW: I am heading to the local shop in the morning - they have both the Sigma and the 16-35mm in stock, I will do a test in the store and post the results here. Any specific focal lengths or f/stops you would be interested in seeing?
p.2 #18 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
Hi Duncan,
I used 100% ambient light for this shot, painting in the appropriate illumination by using layers in photoshop to combine three exposures, each 1.5 stops apart.
It would be interesting to see how the 16-35L does stopped down to f/5 @ 16mm, that's wide open for the Sigma at that focal length. I'd also like to see 16mm @ f/8. You may want to photograph some sort of straight edge to measure the barrel distortion in each lens.
I've only used the Sigma at 12mm so far because that's the focal length I bought it for. I'm interested in seeing the results of your tests.
p.2 #19 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
didn't read previous post, but just want to say, the nikon 12-24 is amazing !!
i'm so happy with. not to big, well build, quite & fast focus, no distortion (at least no need to correct it).for me f4 constant is the big advantage in front of the sigma.And it's really sharp !! this lens is now my favorite one
p.2 #20 · Nikon 12-24mm vs. Sigma 12-24mm - Updated
The mroe good things I hear about that Sigma, the more interested in it I become. As a canon shooter on a 1.6x crop, good WA'a re not easy to come by. I LOVE my 17-40 f/4, but I am finding that in many situations, it just isn't wide enough. That Sigma looks like it's a stellar performer! I just tried it out on a D100 the other day, and I was pretty impressed with the build quality.
Question. I assume that is an FTM ring on the lens?
I assume that at 12 mm youŽll get seriously dark edges, no?