# Review: Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 7, 2016)

```
The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the Sigma 12-24mm f/4L DG HSM Art.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Image Quality</strong></p>
<p>From the always-important image sharpness perspective, this lens is a very good performer with a caveat that I will of course explain. At f/4, this lens is quite sharp in the center of the frame over the full focal length range aside from performance becoming modestly softer from 20mm through 24mm. Stopping down to f/5.6 brings sharp center of the frame results to the entire focal length range……….</p>
<p>……… I mentioned the caveat. What I didn’t notice during this shoot was focus shift. As this lens is stopped down, the plane of sharp focus shifts farther away. Because Canon cameras focus with a wide open aperture, this change is not accounted for during either viewfinder or Live View-based focusing (AF or MF). Stopped down manual focusing in Live View will account for the change, but … this is not how we typically focus. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-12-24mm-f-4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>It looks like Sigma has another winner on their hands with the 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art series lens, especially when you factor in the fact it costs about $1000 less than the Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L.</p>
<p>Sigma 12-24mm f/4 Art $1599: <a href="https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1282159-REG/sigma_205955_12_24mm_f_4_dg_hsm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/2gkZVGC">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG1224AEOS.html?KBID=64393">Adorama</a> | <a href="https://mpex.com/sigma-12-24mm-f4-dg-hsm-art-lens-canon.html?acc=3">Midwest Photo</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2016)

Depends on how you look at it. To me the $1,000 extra for in focus shots trumps pretty much anything. I held on to my 16-35 f2.8 MkI for so long because it focused like a heat seeking missile, I could live with the other IQ limitations because I could 100% trust focus. Now I shoot with the Canon 11-24 and never give focus a thought with that lens either.

Now before we get the usual dof covers miss-focus/focus shift when using UWA lenses I'd like to point out that is simply wrong. Getting subject separation even with wide f4 lenses isn't that difficult if you know what you are doing.

P.S. Has anybody else noticed how much brighter the Canon f4 is in the center of the frame than the Sigma at f4?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1084&Camera=979&LensComp=977

I make that 20 points on a 256 scale, or over 2/3rds stop.


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 7, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> …… I mentioned the caveat. What I didn’t notice during this shoot was focus shift. As this lens is stopped down, the plane of sharp focus shifts farther away. Because Canon cameras focus with a wide open aperture, this change is not accounted for during either viewfinder or Live View-based focusing (AF or MF). Stopped down manual focusing in Live View will account for the change, but … this is not how we typically focus.



So basically every shot with a slower aperture than f/4 will be OOF??? Did I get that right?? please correct me if not but that's how I read that part....


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > …… I mentioned the caveat. What I didn’t notice during this shoot was focus shift. As this lens is stopped down, the plane of sharp focus shifts farther away. Because Canon cameras focus with a wide open aperture, this change is not accounted for during either viewfinder or Live View-based focusing (AF or MF). Stopped down manual focusing in Live View will account for the change, but … this is not how we typically focus.
> ...



Not quite, at some point the dof covers the focus shift. Normally this phenomena is limited to the first two or three stops before dof takes over.


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



OK, thanks for the explanation PBD

I just fast-read the review and had a look at his sample pictures for this phenomenon. They look pretty bad...(in terms of shifting focus plane with slower aperture)

-Sebastian


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2016)

You're welcome.

All the time Sigma lenses were in the hundreds of dollars range and Canon much more expemsive I could see the attraction of them, but at $1,500 vs $2,500 I just don't. Yes $1,000 is a lot of money but the Canon lens is sublime, $1,500 seems like a ton of money for a lens with issues off the bat!


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 7, 2016)

True, and that's even before you run into the "usual" AF problems with sigma lenses....


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 8, 2016)

Unless we are looking at review of somewhat faulty copy of the lens, I think that Sigma dropped the ball this time. I believe that Sigma would be hesitant releasing a lens with such a drammatic focus shift properties. Not such an expensive and unique lens that performs that poor in that regard. I am dissapointed :'(


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 8, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> All the time Sigma lenses were in the hundreds of dollars range and Canon much more expensive I could see the attraction of them, but at $1,500 vs $2,500 I just don't. Yes $1,000 is a lot of money but the Canon lens is sublime, $1,500 seems like a ton of money for a lens with issues off the bat!



I bought both earlier versions of the Sigma 12-24mm, but this time I bought the Canon for two reasons.

The first reason is the price. Its high enough that I went the extra $1,000 and bought the Canon 11-24mm.

The other is that it becomes harder and harder to sell Sigma lenses. As example, the last store in my town that bought used third party lenses (which is convenient when upgrading), has recently closed.

Sure, I can sell lenses myself, and could probably get better prices, but I'm neither good at it or enjoying it.


----------



## timotheus (Dec 8, 2016)

Yeah, if people run into this, it should be fixable if you tune the lens with the USB dock. My 18-35 had varying front-focus issues on different focal lengths, after tuning it works like a charm, consistently.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2016)

timotheus said:


> Yeah, if people run into this, it should be fixable if you tune the lens with the USB dock. My 18-35 had varying front-focus issues on different focal lengths, after tuning it works like a charm, consistently.



No that is not true. Focus shift varies by aperture so unless you can AFMA for multiple apertures and focal lengths the dock will not help.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 8, 2016)

No, you cannot address this issue by tuning the AFMA on the Sigma USB dock.
fair enough, you can compensate for the focus shift for a single distance/aperture combination but thats no help unless you are always shooting stopped down to a specific aperture all the time.

As far as I remember, Reikan Focal is capable of running the AFMA tune up at a specific aperture. Therefore you can adjust at 4 distances to subject + aperture points. Does not sound like a solution to me.
I have made an enquiry with Australian Sigma distributor today in regards to this issue and asked for clarification. 



timotheus said:


> Yeah, if people run into this, it should be fixable if you tune the lens with the USB dock. My 18-35 had varying front-focus issues on different focal lengths, after tuning it works like a charm, consistently.





> ... It looks like Sigma has another winner on their hands with the 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art series lens..



Not really... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 8, 2016)

LensTip also noted this focus shift problem.

TDP states 'Stopped down manual focusing in Live View will account for the change'. Did he mean 'will correct' the change? I assume so.

Then he states 'but ... this is not how we typically focus.' Oh dear, yet another thing I do wrongly - because that is how I do it for landscapes, caves, wildflowers.


----------



## ooF Fighters (Dec 8, 2016)

> I depend solely on the commissions received from you using the links on this site to make any purchase. I am grateful for your support! - Bryan



A rock & a hard place when you literally can't afford to be too critical in a review.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 8, 2016)

ooF Fighters said:


> > I depend solely on the commissions received from you using the links on this site to make any purchase. I am grateful for your support! - Bryan
> 
> 
> 
> A rock & a hard place when you literally can't afford to be too critical in a review.



I don't think so -- that is more his personality than anything else. Otherwise, why wouldn't he tear the $1600 Sigma apart in his review to get you to buy the more expensive Canon 11-24?


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 8, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> LensTip also noted this focus shift problem.
> 
> TDP states 'Stopped down manual focusing in Live View will account for the change'. Did he mean 'will correct' the change? I assume so.
> 
> Then he states 'but ... this is not how we typically focus.' Oh dear, yet another thing I do wrongly - because that is how I do it for landscapes, caves, wildflowers.



I guess if you use it just for landscape and do alle the focussing manually in live view, this Lens is totally Fine and a good alternative for the Canon. But if you want to Walk Around with it and use af you might be disapointed....


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 8, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> I guess if you use it just for landscape and do alle the focussing manually in live view, this Lens is totally Fine and a good alternative for the Canon. But if you want to Walk Around with it and use af you might be disapointed....



Actually, I was poking a bit of fun at the notion that he speaks for all of us ('but ... this is not how *we* typically focus.').

I do use AF sometimes; family shots, portraits, wildlife. But I won't be purchasing the Sigma or the Canon because they are too slow. And the focus shift does put me off. I am glad this was brought up and the first thing I did was check to see whether my lenses have this problem.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 8, 2016)

I'm wondering if the 85Art has also this issue. I've noticed my images shot at f/4 are not as sharp as those shot at f/1.4. Never bothered to check, but now I'm very curious about it.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Unless we are looking at review of somewhat faulty copy of the lens, I think that Sigma dropped the ball this time. I believe that Sigma would be hesitant releasing a lens with such a drammatic focus shift properties. Not such an expensive and unique lens that performs that poor in that regard. I am dissapointed :'(



The EF 50mm f/1.2, which costs about the same, is known for having focus shift as well, and it costs about the same.

And the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 mk1 had its faults as well. E.g. it is famous for having internal reflections, as in the attached photos.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 9, 2016)

Jopa said:


> I'm wondering if the 85Art has also this issue. I've noticed my images shot at f/4 are not as sharp as those shot at f/1.4. Never bothered to check, but now I'm very curious about it.



Here's what LensTip says about the 85 Art:

Spherical aberration

First photos of this chapter don’t feature any noticeable “focus shift”. Still if you look closely you can see a slight shift of the depth of field toward the greater distances when you pass from f/1.4 to f/2.0. Looking at the circles of light you can also perceive vestigial spherical aberration. Overall the image looks very nice but the circle in front of the focus has soft edges and the circle behind the focus – a delicate outline.

Both these effects mean the spherical aberration is not corrected in a perfect way but its influence remains slight so it would be difficult to consider it a serious flaw. That verdict is additionally confirmed by high resolution values across the frame by f/1.4 and lack of characteristic mist in photos.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 9, 2016)

I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
Art family of lenses is totally different animal with completely different phylosophy behind the family of products.
This lens is priced at premium relative to other Art family members and positioned as a direct market competitor to the excellent Canon 11-24 F4 L lens.

LensTip found some of the focus shift but not to the extent I see looking at the images on the TDP lens review page. I am under impression that his review copy was somewhat out of tune... future will tell.




Antono Refa said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Unless we are looking at review of somewhat faulty copy of the lens, I think that Sigma dropped the ball this time. I believe that Sigma would be hesitant releasing a lens with such a drammatic focus shift properties. Not such an expensive and unique lens that performs that poor in that regard. I am dissapointed :'(
> ...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
> Art family of lenses is totally different animal with completely different phylosophy behind the family of products.
> This lens is priced at premium relative to other Art family members and positioned as a direct market competitor to the excellent Canon 11-24 F4 L lens.
> 
> ...



I'll be releasing a review of the 12-24 ART in the next week or so, but I have seen what he refers to...a few times. It doesn't always happen. For the most part, however, so much is in focus all the time with a lens like this that it is rare for an image to actually not be in focus.

Good news is that the Sigma 85 ART is the best focusing Sigma lens I've seen since the 150-600 Sport...though unlike the Tamron 85 VC, the consistency does take a bit of a hit when you move to the outer focus points on my 5D Mark IV.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
> Art family of lenses is totally different animal with completely different phylosophy behind the family of products.
> This lens is priced at premium relative to other Art family members and positioned as a direct market competitor to the excellent Canon 11-24 F4 L lens.



How does that make it different from the 50mm f/1.2L?


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 9, 2016)

1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime? no comments.

It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.



Antono Refa said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I have to respectfully disagree.. Sorry, but you are not comparing apples to apples.
> ...


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> 1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
> 2. UWA ZOOM vs. standard prime? no comments.
> 
> It would be fair to compare Sigma 12-24 Art vs Canon 11-24 F4L or Tamron 15-35 V2.8 VC USD lens - in my opinion at least.



1. How is age relevant? A photographer has to choose between whatever lenses are on the shelves, and his expectations should be set - as you claim - by it's price.

2. Primes are supposed to perform better then zooms, and the shallower the DOF (in this case due to longer focal length and wider aperture) the more focus shift is a problem. I can see why you'd rather not comment.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you & me included.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 9, 2016)

Sorry, I meant to say:
Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.
my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw. Not their phylosophy. They compete against the best of the glass and the old Sigma 12-24 non-Art lens is hardly their competitor 
Canon 50/1.2L is a unique lens on many levels.That makes this lens so desirable that we are happy to forget it's design shortcomings. As I said, not likely this focus shift issue is by design. I am waiting for the Sigma Australian distributor's response to my request to clarify this issue. 





Antono Refa said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > 1. how old is the Canon 50/1.2L ? just roughly.. obviously very old design, pre digital era.. pre historic... Same arguement is valid for the old Sigma 12-24.(old, cheaply designed, pre Art product line.
> ...


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Sorry, I meant to say:
> Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.
> my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw. Not their phylosophy. They compete against the best of the glass and the old Sigma 12-24 non-Art lens is hardly their competitor
> Canon 50/1.2L is a unique lens on many levels.That makes this lens so desirable that we are happy to forget it's design shortcomings. As I said, not likely this focus shift issue is by design. I am waiting for the Sigma Australian distributor's response to my request to clarify this issue.
> ...



Actually, the 50L is not THAT old, I believe it was introduced in 2006, so 10 yo.
But I concur with your opinion. Sigma wants to position itself as top dog in lens design, competing with high end Zeiss glass, while still having competitive pricing. In this case they just don't fulfill their own standards.

Just my 2c 

-Sebastian


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 9, 2016)

Sebastian,
It is quite impossible for a company like Sigma to not fulfill their own standards knowingly. I worked with a number of Japanese companies and hopefully, understood their way of thinking: it is either 100% perfect or none at all... 99,9% perfect isn't perfect and has to be improved.
Kazuto Yamaki following this phylosophy quite religiously. Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.



LordofTackle said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I meant to say:
> ...


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Sorry, I meant to say:
> Sigma lens design standards are higher than of the lenses you have mentioned. new design vs old design.



Higher than Canon L primes?

First, could you, please, point me to a Sigma statement to that effect?

Second, Sigma doesn't have that brand perception where I live. As example, I'm not aware of any photography store where I live that would buy any 3rd party lenses, Sigma included.

[Last shop that did closed ~2 months ago with two 3rd party lenses I traded-in for a Canon lens on September 2013 on its used equipment shelve.]

*The* reason stores wouldn't trade in lenses is there's a problem selling them. Sigma, specifically, has bad reputation for unreliable AF, lenses being bricked, and IQ quality to match its low prices. Which is why the story about a focus shift problem sounds plausible.



Alex_M said:


> my point is: Sigma Art lenses are designed to be revolutionary on many levels. Sigma would not consider releasing an Art lens with such a substantial optical design flaw.



Source?


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
> I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.



LensTip also observed this flaw; is it likely LensTip also had a flawed copy? No lens is perfect - at least I have not found one that is. It seems more likely that Sigma had to compromise a bit to optimize the lens.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 9, 2016)

Well, i am sorry to hear that the Sigma does not have that brand perception where you live. It certainly is very different in my part of the world. And I certainly had no issue in selling off my Art lens collectionand at very good prices. Yes, Many Sigma Art lenses are optically superior to older Canon L glass. There are large number of Sigma Art lens reviews available on line. They make some stellar glass. AF consistency was the issue of the past. Hopefully it is no longer an issue. 



Antono Refa said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I meant to say:
> ...


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Well, i am sorry to hear that the Sigma does not have that brand perception where you live. It certainly is very different in my part of the world. And I certainly had no issue in selling off my Art lens collectionand at very good prices. Yes, Many Sigma Art lenses are optically superior to older Canon L glass. There are large number of Sigma Art lens reviews available on line. They make some stellar glass. AF consistency was the issue of the past. Hopefully it is no longer an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You beat me to it 

just speaking about the optics, Sigma has released several lenses in the last years that rival, or even surpass, the respective offerings from Canon, Zeiss and the like. However, their biggest achilles heel is the sup-optimal AF function, and the possibility that your lens gets bricked with every new camera release.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 9, 2016)

Lenstip review is referring to a mild spherical abberation whether according to images provided by TDP the focus shift is not minor but very substantial. Please do not forget that we are talking 12mm focal length and F4 and resulting depth of field being measured in meters. It is hard to miss focus with lens being that wide at F4 unless you are at MFD

P.S. hyper focal distance at 12mm and F4 is only 1.21m. For a subject located 1.21m in front of the camera, Near focus distance : 0.6m (0.6m in front of the subject) and far focus at infinity. What I see on TDP images is seriously out of focus subject and that's is very concerning...




chrysoberyl said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
> ...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Lenstip review is referring to a mild spherical abberation whether according to images provided by TDP the focus shift is not minor but very substantial. Please do not forget that we are talking 12mm focal length and F4 and resulting depth of field being measured in meters. It is hard to miss focus with lens being that wide at F4 unless you are at MFD
> 
> P.S. hyper focal distance at 12mm and F4 is only 1.21m. For a subject located 1.21m in front of the camera, Near focus distance : 0.6m (0.6m in front of the subject) and far focus at infinity. What I see on TDP images is seriously out of focus subject and that's is very concerning...
> 
> ...


----------



## Sarpedon (Dec 9, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Lenstip review is referring to a mild spherical abberation whether according to images provided by TDP the focus shift is not minor but very substantial. Please do not forget that we are talking 12mm focal length and F4 and resulting depth of field being measured in meters. It is hard to miss focus with lens being that wide at F4 unless you are at MFD
> 
> P.S. hyper focal distance at 12mm and F4 is only 1.21m. For a subject located 1.21m in front of the camera, Near focus distance : 0.6m (0.6m in front of the subject) and far focus at infinity. What I see on TDP images is seriously out of focus subject and that's is very concerning...
> 
> ...



This was also observed by DP Review (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-12-24mm-f4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review/4). Note that the phenomenon is most apparent in the second half of the zoom range: 

"It is worth noting that at 12mm the Sigma performs exceptionally well in terms of sharpness, nearly matching the performance of the Canon lens across much of the frame, albeit never matching its central sharpness. This performance is maintained up until a focal length of about 18mm. Beyond 18mm the performance starts to really fall off due to the effects described in the text above, requiring you to focus and shoot at F8.... The fact that longer focal lengths require you to focus at the shooting aperture to obtain the sharpest images possible is frustrating, even more so because this comes at a cost to corner sharpness. "


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 10, 2016)

Many thanks for the link provided. It apears that my initial thoughts were correct: Sigma droped the ball with this lens quite badly. Given the results provided by DP Review, I do not see this lens being strong financial success for Sigma. Not sure why they released such a weak performing lens.



Sarpedon said:


> ... This was also observed by DP Review (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-12-24mm-f4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review/4). Note that the phenomenon is most apparent in the second half of the zoom range...


----------



## pulseimages (Dec 12, 2016)

Looks like Sigma is falling back to their old Stinkma reputation with this lens.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 12, 2016)

That's taking it way too far. It is not the best Art lens they ever released but still light years ahead of some / many competitors? Why calling names? I am exited to receive my Sigma 85/1.4 Art in about a month from now. 
I also feel privileged to afford such a wonderful glass for a fraction of what it cost me should I decide to purchase a competing product. 



pulseimages said:


> Looks like Sigma is falling back to their old Stinkma reputation with this lens.


----------



## heretikeen (Dec 12, 2016)

Haters will hate.
Most Canon fanboys still haven't gotten over the fact that Sigma now produces equal if not superior lenses you don't have to bleed through the nose for, and they're happy about any and all perceived fault they can gloat over.
1.000 USD more or less is no difference for you? Good for you, clap on the shoulder, but don't talk about stuff you obviously don't know anything about. With the right amount of preparation and adaptation (which is a pain in the ass, granted) you can fit any Art lens to your camera ... at least it worked with the three lenses I use for live photography (20, 35 and 50 1.4 A).
Of course it's easier to justify spending piles of money on your latest man hobby toy if the "lesser" lenses are inferior, and if they aren't, well, let's just pretend they are. And let's pounce on any opportunity to tell the world that you with your +/- 1.000 USD tolerance know exactly what's up.
Seriously, after wine connoisseurs hardcore photo amateurs must be the most stuck-up and prejudiced bunch there is. It's the result that matters, not your fancy red ring.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

heretikeen said:


> Haters will hate.
> Most Canon fanboys still haven't gotten over the fact that Sigma now produces equal if not superior lenses you don't have to bleed through the nose for, and they're happy about any and all perceived fault they can gloat over.
> 1.000 USD more or less is no difference for you? Good for you, clap on the shoulder, but don't talk about stuff you obviously don't know anything about. With the right amount of preparation and adaptation (which is a pain in the ass, granted) you can fit any Art lens to your camera ... at least it worked with the three lenses I use for live photography (20, 35 and 50 1.4 A).
> Of course it's easier to justify spending piles of money on your latest man hobby toy if the "lesser" lenses are inferior, and if they aren't, well, let's just pretend they are. And let's pounce on any opportunity to tell the world that you with your +/- 1.000 USD tolerance know exactly what's up.
> Seriously, after wine connoisseurs hardcore photo amateurs must be the most stuck-up and prejudiced bunch there is. It's the result that matters, not your fancy red ring.



Sometimes I would agree with you, camera owners can be a bore, but on this particular lens you are plain wrong.


> _
> Given the high bar set by Sigma's Art lenses, when I first heard about Sigma releasing this lens at a fairly affordable price I was extremely excited. Unfortunately though, the lens fell short in several aspects. The fact that longer focal lengths require you to focus at the shooting aperture to obtain the sharpest images possible is frustrating, even more so because this comes at a cost to corner sharpness. The lens does have some very nice attributes including its handling of flare, vignetting, CA, distortion and its impressive sharpness across the frame at 12mm, but much of that becomes a minor footnote when looking at the lens sharpness, especially beyond 20mm.
> 
> For my money I would choose the Canon 11-24mm F4L over the Sigma. It really is one of the sharpest wide-angle zooms that I've ever had the opportunity to shoot with, plus it's fully weather sealed. The lens' short comings with respect to CA, vignetting and distortion are all largely correctable through the use of your favorite post processing software, so they don't really impact the final image quality all that much. In short, I really wanted to love the Sigma, but the Canon just flat outperformed Sigma across the focal range, which makes it worth the extra money in my opinion._


https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigma-12-24mm-f4-dg-hsm-art-lens-review/4

$1,000 less for a lens with such limitations just sounds like $1,500 wasted to me.


----------



## heretikeen (Dec 12, 2016)

Yes, I am obviously not talking about this particular lens I neither own nor care much for. It's just this obnoxious behaviour towards Sigma or Tamron lenses in general.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

heretikeen said:


> Yes, I am obviously not talking about this particular lens I neither own nor care much for. It's just this obnoxious behaviour towards Sigma or Tamron lenses in general.



Sigma have earnt that reputation. Maybe you weren't a camera owner when the Sigma lenses didn't work with the first DSLR's and Sigma wouldn't rechip them? I personally know a guy who owned six Sigma lenses he used on his film EOS cameras, not one of them worked or were eligible for rechipping when he went digital. It takes time to get over customer issues like that, rleasing a lens that clearly has issues just adds fuel to those old fires.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> heretikeen said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I am obviously not talking about this particular lens I neither own nor care much for. It's just this obnoxious behaviour towards Sigma or Tamron lenses in general.
> ...


I did not own 6 Sigma lenses that were not rechiped, but I owned 5 Art lenses (2x35/1.4 and 3x50/1.4). They were all returned due to inconsistent AF. There will not be a sixth!


----------



## heretikeen (Dec 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Sigma have earnt that reputation. Maybe you weren't a camera owner when the Sigma lenses didn't work with the first DSLR's and Sigma wouldn't rechip them? I personally know a guy who owned six Sigma lenses he used on his film EOS cameras, not one of them worked or were eligible for rechipping when he went digital. It takes time to get over customer issues like that, rleasing a lens that clearly has issues just adds fuel to those old fires.



And I think that about sums up the grip wealthy Canon fans have with Sigma (plus Tamron):
"They used to be bad, why can't they be bad anymore? That's cheating, something is bound to be fishy."
Much to my colleague's astonishment, I used to use a Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC instead of the first version of Canon's 24-70 2.8, and you know why? Because it was SO MUCH BETTER. And it was the same as with Sigma's lenses: "Oh, Tamron, those trash lenses, can't be good." Ignorance just hurts.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

heretikeen said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma have earnt that reputation. Maybe you weren't a camera owner when the Sigma lenses didn't work with the first DSLR's and Sigma wouldn't rechip them? I personally know a guy who owned six Sigma lenses he used on his film EOS cameras, not one of them worked or were eligible for rechipping when he went digital. It takes time to get over customer issues like that, rleasing a lens that clearly has issues just adds fuel to those old fires.
> ...



I used Tamron lenses for years, the Adaptall 2 70-210. But you are barking up the wrong tree here in this thread and conflating manufacturers. Tamron are not Sigma, Sigma do have a track record of great designs let down by engineering and implementation, it is not just spoilt rich Canon owners that say that. There are countless reports of Sigma lens issues, both lenses not working on newer bodies and inconsistent AF performance. What point is a few more LPMM on a chart or a few hundred dollars still in the bank if nothing is in focus in real life?

Bad experiences are not "ignorance", the bad experiences people like Eldar and my friend have had are why people have this attitude towards Sigma. The fact that they have released a $1,500 lens that has been shown to have IQ issues by everybody who has tested one shows they are still not where they need to be for people who rely on getting the image in focus.

Not all third party equipment is behind Canon equipment, but clearly this lens is. Like I say, to 'save' $1,000 on a lens that clearly has issues is not saving $1,000 at all, it is throwing away $1,500. This is not the lens to make your heroic stand about Don Quixote.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 12, 2016)

Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 12, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.



Per live view


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 13, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone explain how you "focus at the shooting aperture" with a modern camera, or at least to be more precise, AF at the shooting aperture.
> ...



;D duh ! I was preoccupied in focusing on the viewfinder, and never mind how hard I press the DOF button my Canons won't focus with it depressed !


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 13, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...




right before I sent that post, I double checked that this is not possible....^^

Actually, does anyone know WHY it is not possible to focus with the DOF button pressed? (even by accepting maybe a AF accuracy penalty due to the smaller aperture and thus less effective AF). Technical reasons? sorry if that is a stupid question...


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 13, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > LordofTackle said:
> ...



Yes if you could it would be a neat solution to the issue of focus shift on the 50L at around f1.6


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Depends on how you look at it. To me the $1,000 extra for in focus shots trumps pretty much anything. I held on to my 16-35 f2.8 MkI for so long because it focused like a heat seeking missile, I could live with the other IQ limitations because I could 100% trust focus. Now I shoot with the Canon 11-24 and never give focus a thought with that lens either.
> 
> Now before we get the usual dof covers miss-focus/focus shift when using UWA lenses I'd like to point out that is simply wrong. Getting subject separation even with wide f4 lenses isn't that difficult if you know what you are doing.
> 
> ...



Generally, I would agree with you concerning Sigma's AF issues. But it's less of an issue with wider angle lenses. The Depth of field at 12mm is massive...so AF accuracy is a bit of a non issue in this context. I think where this lens will really come unstuck is when it's compared to the 11mm and 12mm primes that are about to be launched. I think that most people are generally using this type of lens at it's widest focal length..so sort of a prime anyhow.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Dec 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> P.S. Has anybody else noticed how much brighter the Canon f4 is in the center of the frame than the Sigma at f4?
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1084&Camera=979&LensComp=977
> 
> I make that 20 points on a 256 scale, or over 2/3rds stop.



A substantial difference. Is it a function of the vignette? More vignette equals a brighter center?


----------



## Chapman Baxter (Dec 17, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
> I am not saying that minor focus shift is an issue. I am saying: whai is evident in the images provided by TDP hardly can be called minor focus shift. In fact it is very substantial focus shift no matter how we look at it.



Which images are you referring to? If it's the images of the jewellery, that's not focus shift, it's Bryan deliberately focusing manually in front of and behind the plane of sharp focus to evaluate longitudinal chromatic aberation.

As Dustin says, at such wide focal lengths, practically everything is in sharp focus regardless. I can set my 12-24mm Mk II so that everything from 3m to infinity is sharp without ever readjusting focus. As far as I'm concerned, focus-shift with this lens , of all lenses, is being blown out of proportion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 17, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on how you look at it. To me the $1,000 extra for in focus shots trumps pretty much anything. I held on to my 16-35 f2.8 MkI for so long because it focused like a heat seeking missile, I could live with the other IQ limitations because I could 100% trust focus. Now I shoot with the Canon 11-24 and never give focus a thought with that lens either.
> ...



I disagree, DOF can be narrowed down to half a dozen blades of grass as my image and 100% crop illustrate.

According to LR I have taken 1/3 of my images at 11mm.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 17, 2016)

There are images of a tree branches shot at a various aperture. You can click through and see how the focus has shifted Towards infinity. Quite a substantial focus shift for such a wide lens.


Chapman Baxter said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > Hence my strong opinion: This focus shift issue is not by design. It was either overlooked at design or production stage or what is more likely: TDP reviewed somewhat flwaed copy of the lens.
> ...


----------

