# Ultra Wide Angle with Full Frame



## gragusha (Mar 19, 2012)

Hi,

I am an amateur hobbyist and love landscape photography. I love really wide angle shots and I liked Sigma 10-20 on my 7D. Now I am getting a 5DMIII and was looking for an ultra wide angle for full frame. The way I see my choices:

1. Canon 17-40 or 16-35 (17-40 is pretty wide but not "super wide"; 16-35 is somewhat expensive)
2. Nikon 14-24 with adapter --> expensive + no auto focus
3. Sigma 12-24 mark II (about $1000)--> Interesting - don't seem to have too much of information about it. Saw a couple of reviews but not that many people seem to have it.

So, my questions:
1. Am I missing any other option
2. What would the recommendation be

Thanks!


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 19, 2012)

Would you want to go the fisheye direction?

Theres that....


----------



## HTCahHTC (Mar 19, 2012)

Isn't 17-40 on FF ultra-wide? 24 is wide and 17 is ultra wide. I don understand why you wan to cross over from Nikon lens, might as well get the D800 which is more suited for landscape photography?


----------



## Tijn (Mar 19, 2012)

The 16-35L II is said to be very sharp, with less distortions than the 17-40L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2012)

You've left primes off your list. There's the 14mm f/2.8 (Canon L, or Samyang manual which is a bargain), several Zeiss primes including the new 15mm, and also the TS-E 17mm f/4L, which is excellent for landscapes.


----------



## gragusha (Mar 19, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> Would you want to go the fisheye direction?
> 
> Theres that....


I was looking for rectilinear.



HTCahHTC said:


> Isn't 17-40 on FF ultra-wide? 24 is wide and 17 is ultra wide. I don understand why you wan to cross over from Nikon lens, might as well get the D800 which is more suited for landscape photography?


I realize 17 mm is ultra wide - I was looking for wider  - 12 to 15 mm range at the widest. Can't switch to Nikon as invested in Canon.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 19, 2012)

The 16-34 on fullframe is the equivalent to the 10-22 on a crop

There is the 14mm prime which is excellent


----------



## justsomedude (Mar 19, 2012)

gragusha said:


> (17-40 is pretty wide but not "super wide"; 16-35 is somewhat expensive)



Uhh... 17 is damn wide on full frame. It's comparable to 10mm on a crop sensor. 

If you don't think that's "ultra wide", then maybe what you're really looking for is a fish-eye lens. 

Here's a shot taken with a 17-40 on the 5D (not my image, found on Google)...


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 21, 2012)

gragusha said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am an amateur hobbyist and love landscape photography. I love really wide angle shots and I liked Sigma 10-20 on my 7D. Now I am getting a 5DMIII and was looking for an ultra wide angle for full frame. The way I see my choices:
> 
> ...




you hit the wall @14mm as far as rectilinear - Zeiss, canon . sigma and Samyang have it in 14-15mm versions
Canon 8-15mm if you want a zoom on the UWA side
For landscape: you might want to consider the TSE 24 II or 17, with a nodal point or panorama tripod bracket with the added shift and tlit focusing abilities, your landscape framing setup is expanded imensly

rent them first...


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 21, 2012)

Tijn said:


> The 16-35L II is said to be very sharp, with less distortions than the 17-40L.



The 16-35mm is an excellent lens and goes from ultra-wide to wide, so it's pretty useful for landscapes and more. It's not super sharp wide open, but the sharpness increases tremendously as you stop down, f/4 is significantly sharper than f/2.8. 

The 14LII is also an excellent lens, much sharper than the 16-35 or 17-40, but also much less versatile and much more expensive. 

I think you would be very happy with the 16-35mm, but if cost is an issue the 17-40 will do just fine also.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 21, 2012)

HTCahHTC said:


> Isn't 17-40 on FF ultra-wide? 24 is wide and 17 is ultra wide. I don understand why you wan to cross over from Nikon lens, might as well get the D800 which is more suited for landscape photography?


I realize 17 mm is ultra wide - I was looking for wider  - 12 to 15 mm range at the widest. Can't switch to Nikon as invested in Canon.


There is the sigma 12-24. Never tried it tho.


----------



## Spooky (Mar 21, 2012)

I have the sigma 12-24 mk1, and it's OK, not that sharp in the corners and the AF is a bit hit / miss, but if you accept the distortion, stop down to f8, manual focus and keep an eye out for flare... Then it's vgood for the money. The mk2 is supposed to be better, and if you like wide then you should definitely consider it. Some folks don't like the Sigma from a future proof POV, in case of lens -body comms issues. The distortion is not that extreme if you keep it level and for the odd landscape it is more than acceptable. I have the 17-40L for my quality wide shots, but agree that you can't beat the 12-15mm views once in a while!


----------



## birdman (Mar 21, 2012)

I would like to add my $0.02. Since apparently I am neither: a) getting the 5d3, or b) switching to Nikon with the D800, I do believe I will just get a new lens. 

I have the 17-40L...it's pretty good, especially for a cheap L lens. It has massive distortion, and IMHO only usable from 19mm-20mm upward. It has filter threads, and gives great colors. Sharpness in corners and sides leaves much to be desired. 

I would either get the newest Tokina 17-35/F4 or their 16-28/2.8-- which is going for $699 new with rebates on Adorama. Hard to beat that price. It doesn't take filters though, and this obviously sucks for many. In time, there will be a work around. 

Also, the Zeiss 18/3.5 or even better, 21/2.8 are supposed to be stellar. Who really cares about manual focus on WAs? Not I


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 21, 2012)

Tijn said:


> The 16-35L II is said to be very sharp, with less distortions than the 17-40L.



If you are getting a 5DIII, don't cheapen your images by getting anything other than the 16-35L II. Of all the lenses i own, the 16-35II is used more than any other on my 5DII. Getting a Nikon, Sigma, Or even the 17-40 will probably leave you feeling a bit disappointed with your images. If you can't afford it now, save and get the right lens the first time.


----------



## akclimber (Mar 21, 2012)

I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2. I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II. The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off. My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners. My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable). The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but PTLens deals with it just fine. Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind. Build quality is pretty good as well.

As far as the "don't settle for anything other than the 16-35 Mk II" sentiment expressed by some, I dunno, if you want *really* wide, 12mm is *a lot* wider than 16mm. But if you need f/2.8, well then the Sigma would be out of the running. 

Have you considered the Samyang 14 f/2.8? That gets generally good reviews, especially for its price to performance ratio.

Cheers!


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 21, 2012)

akclimber said:


> I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2. I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II. The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off. My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners. My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable). The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but PTLens deals with it just fine. Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind. Build quality is pretty good as well.
> 
> As far as the "don't settle for anything other than the 16-35 Mk II" sentiment expressed by some, I dunno, if you want *really* wide, 12mm is *a lot* wider than 16mm. But if you need f/2.8, well then the Sigma would be out of the running.
> 
> ...


Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 21, 2012)

I've been shooting full frame with the 17-40 for about three years now and I really like it. The only reason not to get it, imho, is if you need a 2.8 lens. I shoot landscapes and nature so I almost never need a 2.8 lens, and the 17-40 has served me quite well and I have no complaints. Plus, the price is right.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 21, 2012)

Stu_bert said:


> akclimber said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the Mk I & Mk II versions of the Sigma 12-24 I use them on a 5d2. I've also tested the Nikon 14-24 with adapter on my 5D2. I also use the amazing 24 TSE MK II. The Nikon is a terrific lens but ultimately its cost and the necessary use of adapter turned me off. My sample of the Sigma 12-24 Mk I is pretty good in the center but not so good (e.i. bad) in the corners. My Mk II version is also good in the center and much, much better in the corners (e.i. very usable). The MK II does have more distortion than the Mk I but PTLens deals with it just fine. Both lenses are contrasty enough and both have a bit of Sigma color to them which I don't mind. Build quality is pretty good as well.
> ...



recall that it only allows for manual focus... if that's an issue.


----------



## BL (Mar 21, 2012)

YellowJersey said:


> I've been shooting full frame with the 17-40 for about three years now and I really like it. The only reason not to get it, imho, is if you need a 2.8 lens.



well, and the extra 1mm at the wide end. it may not sound like much, but the extra 1mm is more than subtle imo. i bought both the 17-40 and 16-35 II to evaluate, and found the extra stop and 1mm on the wide end more than worth it. granted, a lot of what i shoot with this lens is indoor architecture along with landscapes on a tripod.


----------



## akclimber (Mar 21, 2012)

Stu_bert said:


> Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?



Yep, it was the 1st generation 16:9 adapter. I bought the adapter & eventually rented a 14-24 for a couple weeks with every intention of ending up buying one. Well, first off, the 14-24 is indeed a rocking lens. Sharp throughout its range and into its corners, contrasty, built well, etc. Highly recommended for the right person. For me, the fact that at that time (it may be different now, I haven't kept up with the Canon to Nikon adapter evolution), you had to pretty much guesstimate what aperture you were using (except wide open and maybe f/8 and fully stopped down) was bothersome. I also found I unexpectedly missed the ability to AF (it was going to be an all purpose lens, not just a landscape or architecture lens and I kinda suck at fast manual AF). In the end I decided that for the amount of times I really need or want really wide, I could make do with the Sigma 12-24 Mk I I had at the time and hope they would soon make an improved version, which they did. Given the cost and slight inconvenience of the 14-24 plus adapter combo, I just couldn't justify the purchase.

Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)

Hope that's useful.


----------



## DJL329 (Mar 22, 2012)

gragusha said:


> D.Sim said:
> 
> 
> > Would you want to go the fisheye direction?
> ...



On Full Frame, 14mm is as wide as you can go for rectilinear, beyond that is fisheye. Since you state you're doing landscapes, I'd say the 16-35mm is your best bet, as a lot of the ultra-wides (Samyang 14mm, Sigma 12-24mm, the Canon 14mm L or 17mm TS-E) do *not* take screw-in filters. If you have a rich uncle, then the new Zeiss 15mm looks nice. 

Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back... 

Good luck!


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 22, 2012)

DJL329 said:


> Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back...



In my area, that could be {{{splash}}} or <<<<ahhhhhhhhh>>>>thud



But yeah, you could do that in most cases.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 22, 2012)

I have been eyeing the Tokina 16-28mm lens. The photozone tests show it is very good against the Canon 16-35mm L.

There have been reports of poor quality control, I expect that they are very difficult to assemble properly.

They are worth looking at. Good deal price wise.

The Tokina AF 16-28mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro SD FX is a high-performance ultra-wide zoom lens that gives the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 USM L II a run for the money - but it's not a lens without flaws. Its primary weakness is corner softness at f/2.8 but that's not unheard of in this class anyway. However, the center quality is great and the borders are generally sharp as well. The corners start to catch up at f/4 and they're very good from f/5.6 onward. Vignetting is, of course, visible at f/2.8, specifically at 16mm but the issue is better controlled than average. Lateral CAs, an old Tokina disease actually, are modest and not overly field-relevant when stopped down a little bit. Typical for such lens it shows some barrel distortions but they're, again, comparatively moderate even at the very wide end of the range. 

Technically the Tokina is superior to the current Canon EF zoom lenses in basically all the analysed image aspects!


Unfortunately there may be a hair spoiling the (optical) soup here - quality control. As mentioned we purchased three lens samples for testing, two in Nikon and one in Canon mount, and all three showed some centering issues. The initial Nikon variant was so poor that we had to cancel the testing procedure. We'd like to urge the manufacturers to take lens centering (alignment) more seriously - just a good or possibly even great base-design is simply not enough without proper manufacturing. We are pretty sure that consumers, especially in the mid-to-high end market, would be happily willing to pay a little more for better quality control. Especially ultra-wide and standard lenses show more outliers than desirable - not only among Tokinas but across the manufacturers (e.g. recently we tested 3 (three!) Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 in Nikon mount without success). We are probably seeing negative outliers in excess of 25%(!) in this segment which is, frankly, embarrassing and unacceptable! That all said we'd like to end this review with some more positive aspects. The (outer) build quality of the Tokina is on a very high level. The lens body is only based on tightly assembled, high quality plastics rather than the "duraluminium" finish used in previous AT-X lenses. However, the quality is still up to pro standards with the exception of the missing weather sealing. Tokina has improved the AF quite a bit - it doesn't really operate "silently" as promised but it's both fast and accurate in phase-detection AF mode. Some users may not like the huge, bulb-like front element which prohibits the use of front filters. However, it seems as if only this design approach solves the performance issues that are usually associated with ultra-wide angle lenses. So setting aside potential sample variations the Tokina is definitely worth a deeper look!


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 22, 2012)

akclimber said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Oooh, I was looking at the Nikon 12-24mm with adapter.... Could you expand on why you did not like the adapter please? Assume you got the 16:9 website one?
> ...


Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.

I'll wait the year till I see if Canon can respond with a UWA of comparable form. TSE-17mm would be interesting acquisition 

Thanks again.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 22, 2012)

I was sold on the Tokina 16-28 until I saw the horrible rainbow flare so that was out for me. I went with the Sigma 12-24 II for my 5DmkII and trust me 12mm rectilinear is WIDE!!! The lens is good but not great from 17-24 and has a very dark viewfinder image (for people like me with the super precision matte screen), but at f/11 from 12-17mm it's very good and ACR, DxO, and PTLens do a great job with the distortion. I'm borrowing a 14mm 2.8 from Canon Professional Services in early April to see how they match up. I have talked to a lot of people and there doesn't seem to be any ideal options (even the Nikon 14-24 flares), so pick the best lens for your budget and live with the limitations as best you can.


----------



## Bosman (Mar 22, 2012)

Def 16-35L II. That is a lust worthy lens. Never buy F4 anything.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 22, 2012)

Arkarch said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back...
> ...



Working at a dive competition? Hover Dam?


----------



## slowhandpdx (Mar 22, 2012)

Definitely the 16-35 f2.8 if you could afford it. It has much less barrel distortion at the edges compared to the 17-40 f4. I compared my 16-35 with my dad's 17-40, and the difference is obvious.


----------



## D.Sim (Mar 22, 2012)

Arkarch said:


> DJL329 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and if 16mm isn't wide enough, take a step back...
> ...



Thanks for making me smile... =)

A very interesting thought


----------



## akclimber (Mar 22, 2012)

Stu_bert said:


> Certainly was, many thanks for taking the time. I have the 17-40 and MK I TSE 24mm and always use MF + Liveview when doing landscapes so no worries there. Cumbersome aperture selection might niggle me, but I presume you could test out the apertures and notch in your most use (mine would be f/13 or f/14)? Adapter is MK III but no idea on what has improved, certainly not aperture selection by the looks.
> 
> I'll wait the year till I see if Canon can respond with a UWA of comparable form. TSE-17mm would be interesting acquisition
> 
> Thanks again.



Have you tried a 24 TSE Mk II vs your Mk I? The MK II is worlds better (I owned a Mk I). Frankly, now, for architecture and landscapes, I can't imagine going back to a non-TSE lens. I'd seriously consider a 24 or 17 TSE + 1.4 adapter over the Nikon if you're considering the Nikon, especially if you're used to using TSE lenses and live view. But yeah, for over all usability, a Canon 14-24-ish f/2.8 equivalent would be very, very cool.


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

If the 16-35 MKII price is a deal breaker for your budget, get the 17-40 used or the original 16-35 MKI Used. The other options you mentioned don't seem so great by comparison. Otherwise get a wide prime or TS-E prime lens. You really can't go wrong with any of the above and in the right hands any of these options will yield amazing results. I have the 16-35 MKII, it's my favorite lens, and I'd be just as happy with the MKI or the 17-40, they are all awesome tools and if I had unlimited funds I would have a 17-40 to go along with it just because I know how good the lens is and it would be fun, although a bit unnecessary, to have both varieties.


----------



## gragusha (Mar 22, 2012)

Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions. I am tending towards a 17-40 F/4L - it is like 11 mm on a crop body - almost same as my Sigma 10-20 on 7D. Since I am looking at it for landscapes, I don't care for extra light sensitivity - F11 is where it will get used!

The extra 5 mm of Sigma 12-24 is very intriguing and I wish I could get my hands on that one to try it out!


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 22, 2012)

I like both the 16-35 and the 17-40. Th 16 weighs quite a bit more than the 17. I own the 17 and for shooting landscapes I personally think it is a bit sharper than the 16 which is awesome since it is half the price! I am a bit confused on your math thinking it will be 11mm on a cropped body though? You did the math the wrong way! On a cropped body it would be around...22mm! But both are great lenses! Happy mark III day people! Hope I get mine tomorrow, I'm feining to go and shoot ASAP !


----------



## gragusha (Mar 22, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I like both the 16-35 and the 17-40. Th 16 weighs quite a bit more than the 17. I own the 17 and for shooting landscapes I personally think it is a bit sharper than the 16 which is awesome since it is half the price! I am a bit confused on your math thinking it will be 11mm on a cropped body though? You did the math the wrong way! On a cropped body it would be around...22mm! But both are great lenses! Happy mark III day people! Hope I get mine tomorrow, I'm feining to go and shoot ASAP !



I meant 17 mm on FF is same as 11 mm on a crop...


----------



## sach100 (Mar 22, 2012)

gragusha said:


> Thank you everyone for your comments and suggestions. I am tending towards a 17-40 F/4L - it is like 11 mm on a crop body - almost same as my Sigma 10-20 on 7D. Since I am looking at it for landscapes, I don't care for extra light sensitivity - F11 is where it will get used!
> 
> The extra 5 mm of Sigma 12-24 is very intriguing and I wish I could get my hands on that one to try it out!



I was also considering to buy an UWA lens. After reading this thread and doing some additional research have decided to buy the 17-40.
so thanks to all who gave their input


----------



## JustinTArthur (Mar 26, 2012)

gragusha said:


> The extra 5 mm of Sigma 12-24 is very intriguing and I wish I could get my hands on that one to try it out!


It was intriguing to me too, but I think you made the right choice given what you said your focus was. After getting one (the first Sigma EX version) and shooting a lot of landscape/HDR with it on a 5DmkII, my favorite photos coming out of it were in the 17-24mm range by EXIF's reckoning, so it's possible those shots could have looked prettier coming from a Canon L-series. I don't regret it though, it never looked soft to me, even at the edges. I would use LR3's default sharpness level, default lens profile or no lens correction at all. The chromatic aberration on my copy seemed almost non-existent
Samps:


 18 mm, F/10


 12 mm [but I cropped off the boring bits], F/22


 20mm, F/5.6
http://

I will also say that while the 12mm length was almost too wide for my landscapery, it was perfect for "capturing the room" or shooting an event chopper-style (folding up tripod, setting camera timer, holding high).


 12mm, F/7.1


 12mm, F/5
If you'd said you mostly shot condo and apartment real estate, I'd be recommending it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Flake (Mar 26, 2012)

Photozone have done a review of the Sigma 12 - 24mm MkII and it's not fantastic. Problems especially at the wide end with border & corner resolution, vignetting, chromatic aberations, and barrel distortion, which don't really become acceptable until f/11 on top of all this it's as expensive as the 17 - 40mm f/4 L, and you can't use filters on the front. I have owned the MkI version of this lens and it was not commercially useable until well up the zoom range.

The Nikon 14 - 24mm f/2.8 is perhaps the best UWA zoom available so it's a good choice if image quality is important to you. It's manual focus, but that's not really an issue with the depth of field available from short focal lengths.

The 17 - 40mm f/4 L is cheap enough for an L lens, but it's not good wide open at the wide end, and could really do with being updated, again you will have to use this lens stopped down heavily if you want decent image quality. You can use filters with it though.

The 16 - 35mm f/2.8 L is double the price of the 17 - 40mm but doesn't give double the performance! Is a 2.8 aperture important to you? You aren't going to be able to get depth of field effects with a lens this short so it's only going to be of use in low light situations.

Of course there are other options but the cost! the 14mm prime has been mentioned but it is mega expensive, then there are the tilt shift lenses the 17 & 24mm again pricey but not as bad as the 14mm! they do serve a purpose, and suffer less from vignetting & resolution fall off than normal lenses, the only downside is the cost.


----------



## drjlo (Mar 28, 2012)

akclimber said:


> Now, my 24 TS-E MK II on the other hand is the best lens I've ever used and I'm now saving for a 17 TSE (but that's another story)
> 
> Hope that's useful.



I just got the TS-E II, and words cannot describe what a monumental feat of engineering and manufacturing this lens represents. I will bide my time and hope the rumored Canon 14-24 incorporates the wide angle excellence Canon has learned since introducing 16-35 II.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Mar 28, 2012)

Flake said:


> Photozone have done a review of the Sigma 12 - 24mm MkII and it's not fantastic. Problems especially at the wide end with border & corner resolution, vignetting, chromatic aberations, and barrel distortion, which don't really become acceptable until f/11 on top of all this it's as expensive as the 17 - 40mm f/4 L, and you can't use filters on the front. I have owned the MkI version of this lens and it was not commercially useable until well up the zoom range.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The 17 - 40mm f/4 L is cheap enough for an L lens, but it's not good wide open at the wide end, and could really do with being updated, again you will have to use this lens stopped down heavily if you want decent image quality. You can use filters with it though.



According to photozone (a) at 17mm, the Sigma 12-24mm is sharper than the Canon 17-40, and (b) there's no other FF lens wider than 14mm. Going a bit longer, other lenses offering 14mm & 16mm are significantly more expensive.

I'm not saying it's an excellent lens. Personally, I'd rather buy a lens as wide & as good optically as the Nikkor 14-24mm, but I don't have the cash required to buy a Nikon D700 + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 28, 2012)

Dont have the full size tiff on hand to post, but this was shot with the 5d2 and 17-40... Yes there's room for improvement but the 17-40 is sharper than the 16-35 2.8 first gen and can hold it's own on most applications.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm getting a Sigma 12-24 II for the 5D3 in a UPS shipment in about 2 hours, so I'll try to post my first impressions tonight. I also have the 10-20 3.5 for crop so that will be a nice compare. 

Red


----------



## Spooky (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm happy with my Sigma 12-24 mk1, but I'm sure the Canon 10-22 is one of their better lenses so wouldn't be surprised to see it being the winner! The flip side is that you won't get a FF zoom lens in that range at such a price point...


----------



## RedEye (Mar 28, 2012)

RedEye said:


> I'm getting a Sigma 12-24 II for the 5D3 in a UPS shipment in about 2 hours, so I'll try to post my first impressions tonight. I also have the 10-20 3.5 for crop so that will be a nice compare.
> 
> Red



Lens arrived, so far VERY impressed. Build qualty is very good, beautiful. I normally use a 135L on the 5d3 and this is a whole new real of fun. Hopefully will have some photos to post soon.


----------



## RedEye (Mar 28, 2012)

Here are a few walk about photos from today. Rather low contrast day outside. I rotated the bench slightly and cleaned it up a bit, otherwise they are right from the camera as jpegs, 5D3. 
I think the lens will be a great complement to a 24-70 or some other daily use lens.

Red


----------

