# sigma 12-24 mk II



## Heidrun (Jun 22, 2011)

Sorry that i put this one in a Canonrumor. But i wonder if anybody has tried this lens. I know that mk I version is crushed by the ef 17-40 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=369&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=3 . But i need something really wide and would buy the Sigma if mk II is better than mk I


----------



## Flake (Jun 24, 2011)

Don't you think it would be a good idea to tell us whether you use a FF or crop body? A 12 - 24mm on a FF is a very different lens than on a crop!

Assuming you are proposing a FF body, it's a massive FoV and images do get distorted as they are changed from 360Â° to rectilinear, sometimes they look plain odd. Then there are the lens / sensor issues. Sensors are often not perfectly flat, (it would be nice if they were) and sometimes they are not even level, but a lens this wide needs perfect alignment. My copy was always sharp on one side & soft on the other, Sigma couldn't fix it, and my suspicions are that the sensor in my 5D MkII is slightly missaligned (it is in nearly all of them). For most applications this doesn't matter, but 12mm is just that bit too far.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 24, 2011)

I use 1 D mk III


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jun 27, 2011)

As far as I know, the Sigma 12-24 mk II was announced, but is not yet on the market. I've heard it's not unusual for Sigma to take a long time between announcement and making the lens available.

I guess you'll have to wait for the reviews.


----------



## pwp (Nov 22, 2011)

Yes I'm resurrecting an old thread, but the Sigma AF 12-24mm f 4.5-5.6 HSM DG II lens has been on the market for a few months now. I have the original which I use for interiors, it's OK at f/11 but really is a fairly limited lens.

A Google search for reviews on the MkII lens doesn't reveal much. PhotoZone has done a technical test on the lens, but without the context of comparison with the original. Indications suggest the MkII is a comprehensive improvement over the MkI..._but_...

Do any CR shooters have practical experience with both lenses on FF?

Paul Wright


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 23, 2011)

I've recently bought a Sigma 12-24 mk II, and beside the fact that it still has flare, e.g. see reply #151 in this thread, I can't say much.

If you want me to test it under specific conditions with a 5DmkII, I could try to accomodate over the weekend.


----------



## pwp (Nov 23, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> I've recently bought a Sigma 12-24 mk II, and beside the fact that it still has flare, e.g. see reply #151 in this thread, I can't say much.
> 
> If you want me to test it under specific conditions with a 5DmkII, I could try to accommodate over the weekend.



Just a viewpoint based on experience with the lens so far would be great.

Thanks, Paul Wright


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 23, 2011)

To make a viewpoint based on little experience ...

As the promotional material says, the new coating reduces flare significantly compared to the mkI, but (see above) does not completely eliminate it.

I usually use this lens on a tripod & aperture relatively closed (~f/11), and I'm happy with both color and sharpness. Definitely doesn't compete with Canon L lenses I've used (135mm f/2L, 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM).

Haven't noticed any chromatic aberations (which I've noticed in 85mm f/1.8 and defished w/ DxO photos of the EF 15mm f/2.8), but I wasn't pixel peeping.

I've volounteered myself w/ equipment as assistance videographer for a friend's clip, and *both the videographer & friend liked the lens' effect and everything taken with this lens went into the final version (which, IMHO, is what counts)*. Do note the video is at lower resolution and view size than the 5D's full resolution. When going into shade in late afternoon, the widest aperture was too slow to shoot video comfortably, so we switched to 50mm f/1.4.


My basic attitude is there's nothing to compete with this lens at the wide end, definitely not at it's price range, so I didn't check the horse's teeth.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 23, 2011)

Funny I was researching this lens yesterday: Here's the impression I got:

Old lens has less distortion, infact for 12mm it is very good. However it suffers from some softness in the corners. This is usually not an issue unless you really look, but it is there and needs to be mentioned.

New Lens: Sharper in the corners open wide is sharper than the 17-40: stopped down, 17-40 begins to catch up, but the sigma has huge width advantage should you need it, and infact is THE widest lens available on FF. Bad news is if you are into architectural photography, it has complex distortion patterns, not simple barrel fixed by PS but tri-modal, that distortion can be distracting; I am not sure if DxO has a fix for it yet, but I read somewhere that someone had a fix for it... I forget where.

Both old and new have their advantages, none is perfect, then again we ask for perfection but seldom really need it, unless we are specialists in a certain type of photography, in which case, you know which one to get.


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 23, 2011)

K-amps said:


> I am not sure if DxO has a fix for it yet, but I read somewhere that someone had a fix for it... I forget where.



Last I checked, several Canon cameras have DxO modules for the old lens, but the new one isn't even planned now.


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 23, 2011)

Personally, I don't care that much for "perfection" in all aspects when it comes to the lenses, the more advanced the lens the more pronounced are some of the flows, like chromatic aberrations which personally, I hate.
Sigma has very serious problem that somehow not many people are talking about, and that is a color shift in the vignetting, or in other words center of the image has different color than the corners. If you are pushing in PS some contrast, or levels this becomes evident and annoying, corners are getting dirty amber tint, while center stays crisp with clear blues and greens.
This is not easy to correct manually and I am pretty sure there are no perfect solutions in the correcting profiles.
This is why my 12-24 classic only occasionally is being used.


----------



## pwp (Nov 25, 2011)

Sunnystate said:


> Sigma has very serious problem that somehow not many people are talking about, and that is a color shift in the vignetting, or in other words center of the image has different color than the corners. If you are pushing in PS some contrast, or levels this becomes evident and annoying, corners are getting dirty amber tint, while center stays crisp with clear blues and greens.
> This is why my 12-24 classic only occasionally is being used.



Sunnystate I have to agree, the 12-24 is an occasional use lens at the best of times. And only at f/11. 

But doesn't it save your backside when you need 12mm? My six years old 12-24 MkI doesn't have the issues you describe. Maybe I scored a good copy.

Paul Wright


----------



## pulsiv (Nov 25, 2011)

sigma may have a spread issue with the quality of their lenses... but I own a classic 12-24 and I'm actually very pleased with it. I think its quite sharp wide open... (if you don't look at the corners) 
If you get a decent one, its quite a bargain... and I would never give mine away for a 17-40 canon. 

are there any reliable tests of the mkII out there? I never really looked...


----------



## RedEye (Mar 6, 2012)

I'm wondering if anyone is using this lens who also owns the 14MM L2.8II? From everything I can find it appears to be quite a nice lens, and for 1/2 the cost of a new 14MML MkII, it could be a less risky investment. Opinions welcome! (photo evidence too...haha


----------



## AdamJ (Mar 9, 2012)

I have the 12-24mm II which I use with a 5DII. I also have a 17-40 so I can offer a direct comparison.

My Sigma copy is sharper across the frame than the 17-40 at equivalent focal lengths and apertures. The Sigma's extreme corners soften at its widest focal lengths. By 'extreme corners', I mean the outermost 3% or so of the image. This image from photozone.de illustrates it.

http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/1449271793_tsLbq28-O.jpg

This is one of those lenses that shows its best in real-life images rather than the lab. Where in the any of the following images on this page is corner sharpness an issue?

http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/2011/11/review-sigma-12-24mm-mark-ii/

The Sigma's CA is low across most of the frame and reasonably low in the corners. I suspect this is the biggest advance over the MkI. I have to say that I've never had a problem with flare but at 12mm, it's sometimes a challenge to keep flare sources out of the frame.

Build quality is excellent and it has a nice chunky, heavy feeling to it. For what it's worth, the front element is a work of art.

Two downsides: first, the lens accepts rear gel filters so a polariser can't be used. Second, low light autofocus is noticeably less decisive than any of my canon lenses. On the subject of focus, for landscapes I usually set focus manually at the hyperfocal distance.

12mm is so wide that I treat the Sigma as a 'specialist' creative lens, for use in limited, specific circumstances. In general photography , I don't need to go wider than that offered by my 24-105 but when the right situation presents itself, the Sigma offers a truly unique and frequently stunning perspective.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 12, 2012)

Thanks Adam, I appreciate the comments and links, cheers!


----------



## NiceShotSteve (Mar 16, 2012)

I own the Mark I version and use it on my 5D2. The images are superb when the composition is handled correctly. Distortion is nil, and I have never noticed any corner softness beyond 13 mm. And, the lens is a bargain by any standards. I love it.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 16, 2012)

I had this lens (Mark I) and miss it. No it's not as sharp as a 70-200 f2.8 II. It is sharper than Canon's 12mm 

I replaced mine with the Sigma 15mm fisheye, and then Canon's 8-15mm fisheye. Which are great fun.


----------



## axlimaging (Mar 19, 2012)

Hi there!

I've got mkII version on a 5D2 and, well, here's a few galleries shot exclusively with this lens:

Major:

http://axlimaging.com.au/summerbass

and a few other minor galleries:

http://axlimaging.com.au/philk
http://axlimaging.com.au/earthfreqafterparty
http://axlimaging.com.au/digitalpunk
http://axlimaging.com.au/shenanigans

Ignore the fact that I'm using it in a situation for which it isn't intended (people) and for the fact that I've got no style. ;D Just have a look over to see what's practically possible. 

It's not a sharp lens at all. F4.5 is pretty bad, f5.6 is better. Edges are crap but the middle is decent. It's a fun lens, but girls will hate you.

You can correct via PTLens - and that's great for the building shooters I guess. I'm not big on buildings and mountains.


----------

