# Review: Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG II HSM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 22, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/review-sigma-12-24mm-f4-5-5-6-dg-ii-hsm/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/review-sigma-12-24mm-f4-5-5-6-dg-ii-hsm/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Bryan over at The Digital Picture has posted his review of the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG II HSM. This is the widest rectilinear lens available for full frame Canon DSLRs. If you’re looking for a lens that will give a truly unique look, this will definitely fit the bill.</p>
<p><strong>Says The Digital Picture:

</strong><em>“This lens is not without some shortcomings, but what it offers is available in no other lens. The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG II HSM Lens is the widest angle rectilinear lens available in a Canon, Nikon, Sony or Sigma DSLR mount. This unique capability will allow you to capture images that would otherwise not be possible and the quality of Sigma 12-24 II images can be also-impressive.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-12-24mm-f-4.5-5.6-DG-II-HSM-Lens.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004M18N2U/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B004M18N2U&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=UYDN5QJXKVSPBEE2" target="_blank">Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 DG II at Amazon</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 22, 2014)

I owned this lens a couple of years ago and found that it was pretty decent at 12mm & f/11, but not great at any other aperture or focal length. DxO did a good job of correcting the distortion and when I compared it to the 14L II, I found it to cover roughly 1/3 more area in terms of field of view at 12mm than the Canon at 14mm. That's pretty crazy! I didn't use the lens a whole lot, so I sold it (for a huge loss) when I bought my 300mm, lens, but there are still times when I wish I had it, because the 12mm focal length is so unique.

A few months back I put together a thread with my best shots from the lens in the Lens Gallery, if anyone is interested in seeing shots beyond what Brian did for the review:

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II Photos


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 22, 2014)

I totally lost interest in this lens when defishing my Sigma 15mm fisheye (and Tokina 10-17 zoom fisheye) became a 1-click option in Lightroom. Still, when shooting ultrawide, I nearly always prefer the fisheye projection, so I rarely defish.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

One of my mentors, an incredible photographer at the very top of his niche in the world who was tragically killed on a shoot, Marc Paris, used the 12-24 almost exclusively. He had the money to buy pretty much any lens and camera made but he swore by that 12-24 on his 5D MkII.

If you look in any high end motor yacht magazine from two to ten years ago, chances are there is a Marc Paris photo shoot in there, often times more than one. Every interior shot was done with that Sigma 12-24. And if you like the lighting on those interior shots know that he did it all with three flashlights (torches) and a mixture of ambient and light painting.

A true master of light and sorely missed.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> One of my mentors, an incredible photographer at the very top of his niche in the world who was tragically killed on a shoot, Marc Paris, used the 12-24 almost exclusively. He had the money to buy pretty much any lens and camera made but he swore by that 12-24 on his 5D MkII.
> 
> If you look in any high end motor yacht magazine from two to ten years ago, chances are there is a Marc Paris photo shoot in there, often times more than one. Every interior shot was done with that Sigma 12-24. And if you like the lighting on those interior shots know that he did it all with three flashlights (torches) and a mixture of ambient and light painting.
> 
> A true master of light and sorely missed.


Private, thank you for sharing that information and I just took a look at some of his work on yachtsinternational.com and other sites. His work is impeccable and I can see a number of the 12mm shots that you mentioned. For a yacht interior I'm sure that was a perfect tool and he knew how to get the most out of it. That's also interesting about his lighting and makes a lot of sense, especially if you're traveling around a lot and can't bring strobes with you. I also found the information about his tragic death and I'm sure he is missed by many.


----------



## TeT (Jul 22, 2014)

I love how Brian never misses an opportunity to couch his words in his reviews... Along with throwing out genuine praise where deserved.

This is not a comment on the lens but on the review and reviewer, who in my opinion does a very thorough and accurate job.


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 22, 2014)

The link to Amazon is broken. Instead of "http" it starts with "ttp".


----------



## candc (Jul 23, 2014)

i have the 8-16 and love it. this new 12-24 is as step up from the older lens but i still don't know if its better on ff than the the dc version?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=954&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=710&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the corners still look sharper on the 8-16 which is important for this type of lens.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 23, 2014)

I can't see using a soft ultra-wide, it's exactly the wrong direction. You'd have to shoot everything at f/11, so you'll need good lighting all the time. Camera's are heading to higher and higher pixel counts, so they need sharper lenses.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 23, 2014)

Etienne said:


> Camera's are heading to higher and higher pixel counts, so they need sharper lenses.



Lenses should be designed and bought with photographers' needs, rather than sensor specs, in mind.

I very rarely print larger than A4, which means 99.9% of the time I could do with ~8MP at 300DPI + margin for crop, so the current crop of 18MP sensors is already an overkill for me.

I'm not going to complain about rise in sensor resolution, as disks & memory cards are getting larger, faster, and cheaper all the time, but why the hell would I spend money & effort on sharper lenses & better stabilization just to get those extra pixels I don't need to begin with?


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 23, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Camera's are heading to higher and higher pixel counts, so they need sharper lenses.
> ...


Antona, you have a rare voice of reason around here and those are good points that most people should pay attention to when buying their equipment.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Agreed, and a point I have made many times myself, much to the derision of some of the forumistas. Do I detect a pattern?

Even if we all go to 4K TV's and monitors we are also only looking at 8MP.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 23, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Camera's are heading to higher and higher pixel counts, so they need sharper lenses.
> ...



I'm sure the multiple benefits of high resolution (like cropping) have been listed a zillion times, so I'll skip that. An ultra-wide has many uses, not the least of which is landscape, and most ultra-wide shots are vastly improved by sharp resolution. It has become a point of pride with some people here that they don't "need" this or that improvement. That's shortsighted in my opinion. Anyone can opt-out of improved technology at any time, and old "good-enough" lenses are always available for you. If you are completely satisfied with what you have, good for you, you'll save money. But the world moves on, and I prefer to move on with it.


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Jul 23, 2014)

I bloody love my 12-24 Mark I and this review has made me think that I should buy the Mark II. I'm very keen on the idea of improved sharpness and less bothered about increased distortion. I remember seeing a review on Fred Miranda that said this was a really fun lens, and that's what triggered me buying it. It is hard to master, only appropriate under certain circumstances but gives astonishing results when you get it right.

I have the 16-35 II - and I use that a lot - and the 14 II and they don't rock my world like this crazy lens. 

http://purpleport.com/portfolio/thechaosengineers/image/1014689/photographer/?referrer=thechaosengineers

Ash


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 23, 2014)

Etienne said:


> I'm sure the multiple benefits of high resolution (like cropping) have been listed a zillion times, so I'll skip that.



Adding more pixels will eventually hit the wall of lenses' resolving power, and I don't recall numbers being raised in those zillion times.

[I don't bother because I didn't use a lens longer than 200mm in 2&1/2 years, but bird photographers might care about that.]



Etienne said:


> If you are completely satisfied with what you have, good for you, you'll save money.



I can already print about 2x as large as I want, and buying GigaPan would be cheaper than buying a new camera. And as my banker keeps saying, if I wasn't prideful, I would have gone to the same orchards as the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing employees and pick me enough money to buy me a small island.


----------

