Real sigma 12-24 samples!!!

tasty donuts · Nov 18, 2003

he's patently rude and not deserving of any such courtesy.

and no keef, i am not trying to be a d!ck to you just for the sake of it. if you had rubbed just me the wrong way i'd just leave it at that but you continue to insult everyone else on this forum with your silly contrivances and i won't stand for it. i'm not seeking out your threads to target you but when i come across them in search of rational discussion and instead find only your rudeness i will continue to harrass you. you talk about "public service," well this entire forum is a public service and you are being a nuisance with your irrational behavior.

this is CANON SLR LENS TALK. people come here to read about LENSES. we don't CARE about the rest of your home page. if we are really curious we will browse it through other links. so just link to your home page from your sample pics page. i bet most of us would take a look if it seems interesting enough. i have browsed plenty of other people's sites based on fantastic samples they posted; that was my choice. why do you force us to look at your site? even if it were amazing (which it isn't, but that's besides the point), it is still very rude to force people to click through, and behave so obnoxiously when they try to save other people's time by posting a direct link. do you understand??

to everyone else, i apologize for the rant, i rarely get bent out of shape this badly but some people...

TD

R.P.F. said:
keef said:

Please dont make any direct links in any comments you may post.

i asked for no direct links

what is it about my request that you do not understand?

http://www.waddo.net

keith

Click to expand...

Sorry Keith, I did not understand your request.

I took that to mean:

That pictures were not to be referenced directly into notes that
others may post on here. Thus using your bandwidth. I have quoted
just the address to which all the pictures are hosted as it was
clear that some including myself were struggling to find the
pictures. This will not effect your bandwidth. Sorry If I offended,
I was trying to assist others and encourage the discussion of this
new lens.

I am encouraged that I haven't bought the Sigma, after seeing some
of those shots. It appears that the right hand side is worse than
the left.

--
Cheers, R.P.F.

tasty donuts · Nov 18, 2003

that he is taking advantage of our interest in this lens to lure people into visiting his website. Ray's going-through-slot-machines-to-get-to-the-buffet Las Vegas casino analogy seems very apt - this lens would be advertised as all-you-can-eat Filet Mignon or something, even if it turns out to be Grade B meat...

Just Looking said:
Just Looking said:

First, you didn't give the page link:
http://www.waddo.net/Indexpages/xtra.html

Click to expand...

Oops, I just noticed you called someone an obscenity for doing the
same courtesy I just did. This perplexes me even more... Is it
that you need people to wade through all the cruft on your pages to
find the little text links to the information that you're trying to
direct them to? Maybe you need to explain, before my thoughts turn
too much more negative about you...

j

Ray Chen · Nov 18, 2003

At least I know I am not alone on this, and I am not the one that is being unreasonable to expect easier access...

--
Ray Chen

It's not about the equipments, but even the best photographer can't make a white wall interesting with a pinhole camera.

photogeek · Nov 18, 2003

Sorry, Sigma, you don't yet have technology and/or knowledge to build such a zoom. Neither do Canon or Nikon (whose 12-24 zoom reportedly blows).

John Foote · Nov 18, 2003

Hate to interrupt all the fun name calling, but back on topic, I had hopes for this lens. It seems they were impossibly high. De-fished fishes look a lot better. I can't see taking anything with this that wouldn't be a mere novelty shot.

Stefan Schott · Nov 18, 2003

keef said:
weather idiots like you find it nice or not.

I would have liked to discuss your 12-24 samples with you but if you choose to use this kind of language with long-standing bonafide forum contributors like tasty and Ray, I'll have to put you on my "ignore-list" instead.

Good day.

Stefan

--

»We've experienced the fact that the perceptions of an expert surpass the precision of measuring instruments.« Nakabayashi-san of Canon, Inc.

ToddAP · Nov 18, 2003

Here's the link so you don't have to wade through the rest of the cr@p at his personal website like he wants us to:

http://www.waddo.net/Indexpages/xtra.html

tasty donuts · Nov 18, 2003

... after getting over my initial indignation at the obtuse poster, i have to say they look awful. there is no way i would ever use this lens, no way at all...

ToddAP said:
Here's the link so you don't have to wade through the rest of the
cr@p at his personal website like he wants us to:

http://www.waddo.net/Indexpages/xtra.html

Paul Schrodt · Nov 18, 2003

tasty donuts said:
he SIMPLY REFUSES to be
helpful like most everyone else around here and save people the
trouble of clicking through some silly links on his ungrammatical
home page.

Of course it's ungrammatical. How good is your Japanese? Very sukoshi, I bet!

Yet I too find it odd that keef doesn't realize forcing people to go through his homepage makes them much less likely to come back.

Stanley W. Rogouski · Nov 18, 2003

Those 12-24 images are painful to look at.

For the $650 they'll charge you for the lens you can buy a film camera and scanner.

tasty donuts said:
... after getting over my initial indignation at the obtuse poster,
i have to say they look awful. there is no way i would ever use
this lens, no way at all...

Novice161734 · Nov 18, 2003

based on what I read this lens is not going to be what I've been waiting for.That being the case what would the experts out there recommend from the following options:

sigma 15-30
sigma 17-35
canon 17-40

I've probably missed some....my criteria being as wide as possible but still acceptable results.

thanks very much.

keef said:
These are only samples taken inside the shop, but I think at this
point better than nothing.

My expectations were not high after looking at what turned out to
be Nikon samples last time. In fact, for me this lens is pretty
much useless. Wide open wide angle is very blurry. Even stopped
down it still stays blurry, though of course less.

Zoomed in the lens is much better. But most of us I think are
looking for a wide zoom, so that's not much help.

Also, if you look at some earlier test shots, you will see I
compared the sigma fisheye with the Canon 17-40L. It did pretty
weel and I bought it. The 12-24 does not compare at all. The
difference is startling. You miay wish to compare the sigma
defished shot with a the f8 12-24. The new zoom is quite a bit
wider, but check the price label on the right. The zzom is even
wider than the fishy fisheye shot, which you can also check.

Any way, for me the fish eye is sharp and offers fishy or non fishy
shots. It's also light. The 12-24 for me is really just unusable.

But that's just my opinion. Too bad though because I would have
bought it otherwise.

Please dont make any direct links in any comments you may post.

Hope this is of interest to some.

http://www.waddo.net

Max Fun · Nov 18, 2003

If you want it as wide as possible on a 1.6x crop camera, my suggestion is the 15mm fisheye. There was a thread here that mentioned that after defishing, the FOV of the image is actually more like a 19mm on a film camera. Plus it's fast and has a deep DOF, so I use it all the time, and I sometimes like the fishy effect as well.

Novice2 said:
sigma 15-30
sigma 17-35
canon 17-40

I've probably missed some....my criteria being as wide as possible
but still acceptable results.

thanks very much.

keef said:

These are only samples taken inside the shop, but I think at this
point better than nothing.

My expectations were not high after looking at what turned out to
be Nikon samples last time. In fact, for me this lens is pretty
much useless. Wide open wide angle is very blurry. Even stopped
down it still stays blurry, though of course less.

Zoomed in the lens is much better. But most of us I think are
looking for a wide zoom, so that's not much help.

Also, if you look at some earlier test shots, you will see I
compared the sigma fisheye with the Canon 17-40L. It did pretty
weel and I bought it. The 12-24 does not compare at all. The
difference is startling. You miay wish to compare the sigma
defished shot with a the f8 12-24. The new zoom is quite a bit
wider, but check the price label on the right. The zzom is even
wider than the fishy fisheye shot, which you can also check.

Any way, for me the fish eye is sharp and offers fishy or non fishy
shots. It's also light. The 12-24 for me is really just unusable.

But that's just my opinion. Too bad though because I would have
bought it otherwise.

Please dont make any direct links in any comments you may post.

Hope this is of interest to some.

http://www.waddo.net

Click to expand...

--
The Secret to Life is... Calcium!!
http://max-fun.fotopic.net

tasty donuts · Nov 18, 2003

Novice161734 said:
sigma 15-30

a good lens, but being over US $500 i would just spring $150 or so more for the 17-40L

Novice161734 said:
sigma 17-35

the current version was really mediocre when i tried it and that was a good copy, supposedly most are far worse. avoid it at all costs; however, there is a new version that should be out in a month or so that looks promising. you should definitely wait to see how the new lens performs.

Novice161734 said:
canon 17-40

can't go wrong with the 17-40L, it's become the standby in UWA zooms... possibly the best 17mm lens available for the 10D, zoom or not. even if the new Sigma 17-35 turns out to be excellent i doubt it will be as good much less better than the Canon.

Novice161734 said:
I've probably missed some....my criteria being as wide as possible
but still acceptable results.

i'm not aware of anything else worth considering except perhaps the 15mm fisheyes but by "acceptable" results i assume you mean lenses with rectilinear perspective...

Mats Neander · Nov 18, 2003

keef said:
These are only samples taken inside the shop, but I think at this
point better than nothing.

My expectations were not high after looking at what turned out to
be Nikon samples last time. In fact, for me this lens is pretty
much useless. Wide open wide angle is very blurry. Even stopped
down it still stays blurry, though of course less.

Zoomed in the lens is much better. But most of us I think are
looking for a wide zoom, so that's not much help.

Also, if you look at some earlier test shots, you will see I
compared the sigma fisheye with the Canon 17-40L. It did pretty
weel and I bought it. The 12-24 does not compare at all. The
difference is startling. You miay wish to compare the sigma
defished shot with a the f8 12-24. The new zoom is quite a bit
wider, but check the price label on the right. The zzom is even
wider than the fishy fisheye shot, which you can also check.

Any way, for me the fish eye is sharp and offers fishy or non fishy
shots. It's also light. The 12-24 for me is really just unusable.

But that's just my opinion. Too bad though because I would have
bought it otherwise.

Please dont make any direct links in any comments you may post.

Hope this is of interest to some.

http://www.waddo.net

--
Mats N

EOS600/EOS300D/EF-S18-55/EF24-85/EF70-200.4L/EOSIX/KonicaAutoreflexTCwHexanon40mmF1,8/CanonetQL17/RicohFF1s

Hmmm...hope it´s just a bad sample and not badly shot.

BTW, what´s that EOS 7 shown on the sales desk?
Just a jap. name for some known camera???

Mats in Sweden

wolf h · Nov 18, 2003

At my monitor the 12mm samples look not so bad I had expected, when I first read that post , but without any doubt You have to stop down to opening 8 to get it reasonably sharp and then even the left side upper corner is acceptable for me. But the right upper half looks very blurred or smeared. So my idea is that somebody touched the huge frontlens with greasy fingers at the corresponding parts, before. If I'm not right with my prognosis and this was a misaligned lens, I still hope mine, I get in about two weeks, will not show an effect like this. I still have a SIGMA 15-30, what is a wonderful sharp lens, but for my work I'm in urgent need for a FF 20mm comparable lens on my 10D and the only choice at the time is SIGMA 12-24. The price in Germany is about € 900, what would be a lot for an unusable lens.
wolf

keef said:
These are only samples taken inside the shop, but I think at this
point better than nothing.

My expectations were not high after looking at what turned out to
be Nikon samples last time. In fact, for me this lens is pretty
much useless. Wide open wide angle is very blurry. Even stopped
down it still stays blurry, though of course less.

Zoomed in the lens is much better. But most of us I think are
looking for a wide zoom, so that's not much help.

Also, if you look at some earlier test shots, you will see I
compared the sigma fisheye with the Canon 17-40L. It did pretty
weel and I bought it. The 12-24 does not compare at all. The
difference is startling. You miay wish to compare the sigma
defished shot with a the f8 12-24. The new zoom is quite a bit
wider, but check the price label on the right. The zzom is even
wider than the fishy fisheye shot, which you can also check.

Any way, for me the fish eye is sharp and offers fishy or non fishy
shots. It's also light. The 12-24 for me is really just unusable.

But that's just my opinion. Too bad though because I would have
bought it otherwise.

Please dont make any direct links in any comments you may post.

Hope this is of interest to some.

http://www.waddo.net

Chris Maddock · Nov 18, 2003

wolf h said:
At my monitor the 12mm samples look not so bad I had expected,
when I first read that post , but without any doubt You have to
stop down to opening 8 to get it reasonably sharp and then even
the left side upper corner is acceptable for me. But the right
upper half looks very blurred or smeared. So my idea is that
somebody touched the huge frontlens with greasy fingers at the
corresponding parts, before. If I'm not right with my prognosis and
this was a misaligned lens, I still hope mine, I get in about two
weeks, will not show an effect like this. I still have a SIGMA
15-30, what is a wonderful sharp lens, but for my work I'm in
urgent need for a FF 20mm comparable lens on my 10D and the only
choice at the time is SIGMA 12-24. The price in Germany is about
€ 900, what would be a lot for an unusable lens.
wolf

Any chance of seeing some sample shots, when you do get it?
Pretty please?

--
KRs
Chris

My meagre efforts are at http://www.dslr.co.uk

Lu Yin · Nov 18, 2003

Geez, what's the a word all about?

I was interested about the lens so I clicked on the link. I saw whole bunch of unrelated stuff so I just closed my browser. It was nice of him to post the actual link. You asked for "no direct links". What does that mean? From the context of your "personal web site", it seems that you are concerned about your personal information. That's exactly what the link is for, skipped all the b/s and directly to the point.

People here are interested in information about cameras and lenses. If you think your samples pictures are so valueable, sell it somewhere else. Don't force people to browse all the cr@p and look for useful info.

keef said:
This is my personal web site

i asked for no direct links

what is it about my request that you do not understand?

http://www.waddo.net

keith

Greg Hammond · Nov 18, 2003

Posting text in a message that says there are examples, then directing people to your top page where it's not obvious where the samples are --- is a complete waste of our time. I don't think the guy was out of line posting a more direct link, since it's in YOUR thread.

Greg

keef said:
This is my personal web site

i asked for no direct links

what is it about my request that you do not understand?

http://www.waddo.net

keith

keef · Nov 18, 2003

the sigma fish gives very good results buth fishy and defished.

i also agree with the post above: it seems that the tech for making such a lens is not here yet. maybe thats why canon have held back.

http://www.waddo.net

Keith

John Lehmkuhl · Nov 18, 2003

keef said:
Please dont make any direct links in any comments you may post.

Hope this is of interest to some.

http://www.waddo.net

What a bizzare request. You reqire people to walk in your front door, go thru the kitchen, get lost in the bed rooms and consider that a joy for us ? Your site is poorly designed and is confusing. When people post to a forum, it's a polite gesture to show them the way - giving a direct URL would be the right way to present your photos.

I can understand totally asking people to not link any image URL's to posts here since bandwidth would be increased - but your logic is bad and your web design is not exactly user friendly.

-John Lehmkuhl
--
*********************************************************
Los Angeles Canon digital SLR Group -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lacdg/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl
Lens Example Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl/lens_examples

Real sigma 12-24 samples!!!

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

John Foote

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

New member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts