Sigma 12mm goes to the car show

Got a chance to take out the new lens and give it a bit of a workout. Misty/overcast start to the day. Apple Photos with Photomator and/or Luminar.































































--
-----
Matt
Fujifilm X-T5 (black and silver).
Prime time- 18mm f/1.4, 33mm, Viltrox 75mm.
2.8 club- 16-55, 50-140.
Rest of the story- 70-300, and 100-400mm, 1.4 ext. and MCEX-11. X-T2 (broken paper weight).

What is yoru opinion about lens?

I heard it has barrel distortion so if you shoot RAW do you get the profile correction in lightroom?

mahidoes said:

What is yoru opinion about lens?
I heard it has barrel distortion so if you shoot RAW do you get the profile correction in lightroom?

Click to expand...

I don't use lightroom, so can't comment on that.

I do have mixed feelings after the first few outings overall. I'll attach some images- they are all going to come through as JPEG, but there is some fringing on some of the high key edges. It's a bit hit and miss, so maybe me getting used to using such a wide angle. I see it in some images, and not in others. All images shot with linear polarizer and 1/8 power diffusion filter- which may have added to the blue/purple fringing where it does show? No lens hood either- had to use step up ring for the filters and don't have a lens hood at the 67mm filter size.

So far, the rest of my car show images were mostly okay- although a few building roof lines had some blue/teal fringing when I go back and look- albeit minimally. I've re-attached a couple of those also, and dropped the blue color just to see what it would do. Only these last two have any editing- rest are sooc.

These first two look pretty okay to me. This is definitely a bit of a stress test with the highlights. Maybe it's the ratio of highlight to image in the frame.

I came home this weekend and looked at my images and started wondering if I'm still within the return window- that's how surprised I was. I watched some youtube reviews (I understand previews is more like it this early in a lens release). Didn't see anything horrible. I want to try outdoors again without the diffuser- see if that makes a difference. I have an event in a couple weeks I really wanted the wider angle for. I was tempted by the Viltrox 13mm, but didn't want something that physically big, and early results for the Sigma make it sound pretty good for astro.












Left side is horrible, and that spot about 1/3 in from the right. Quick handheld shot.




Much better control comparatively.




Jpeg of raw- much better control here.




Regular jpeg of the above. Much better control again.










Dropped the deep blue saturation and you can start to make out the cleaner roof line in this image.





--
-----
Matt
Fujifilm X-T5 (black and silver).
Prime time- 18mm f/1.4, 33mm, Viltrox 75mm.
2.8 club- 16-55, 50-140.
Rest of the story- 70-300, and 100-400mm, 1.4 ext. and MCEX-11. X-T2 (broken paper weight).

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

I will have to look through some more images. I am definitely new to this wide of an angle, and wonder if part of it is being so close to the subject and learning the focal length. I definitely was up close and personal.

Some quite pleasing shots, thanks for sharing! And the high resolution is appreciated, I'll check a few out at 100% later.

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

io_bg said:

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

Click to expand...

I am not certain, no. But to me the lines are somehow curved, and I have never seen perspective like that while shooting 10mm (XF 10-24 f/4) or 12mm (Samyang 12mm f/2). I think I've always seen perspective lines going "inward" and not "outward".

It's a hutch, not a certainty that I have

Mountaingrapher said:

io_bg said:

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

Click to expand...

I am not certain, no. But to me the lines are somehow curved, and I have never seen perspective like that while shooting 10mm (XF 10-24 f/4) or 12mm (Samyang 12mm f/2). I think I've always seen perspective lines going "inward" and not "outward".

Click to expand...

It’s just perspective. The camera is angled downwards, so the lines converge below the horizon. Angle the camera upwards, as people more often do, and they converge above the horizon. With the camera perfectly horizontal they are parallel. The same is true for all lenses, it’s just more noticeable the wider the view. In practice, it means that the shorter the focal length, the less you can tilt away from horizontal before the convergence effect becomes distractingly strong.

Mountaingrapher said:

It's a hutch, not a certainty that I have

Click to expand...

I have a hunch that that’s a typo

Jeff Biscuits said:

Mountaingrapher said:

io_bg said:

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

Click to expand...

I am not certain, no. But to me the lines are somehow curved, and I have never seen perspective like that while shooting 10mm (XF 10-24 f/4) or 12mm (Samyang 12mm f/2). I think I've always seen perspective lines going "inward" and not "outward".

Click to expand...

It’s just perspective. The camera is angled downwards, so the lines converge below the horizon. Angle the camera upwards, as people more often do, and they converge above the horizon. With the camera perfectly horizontal they are parallel. The same is true for all lenses, it’s just more noticeable the wider the view. In practice, it means that the shorter the focal length, the less you can tilt away from horizontal before the convergence effect becomes distractingly strong.

Jeff Biscuits said:

It's a hutch, not a certainty that I have

Click to expand...

I have a hunch that that’s a typo

Click to expand...

A lot of the car show images I was crouched/one knee with slight up angle, or nearly level from the crouch/kneel. I think this focal length will be quite a learning curve. I rented the 10-24 a very very long time ago, and don't recall it having issues- perspective or fringing- but that was a very different environment (slot canyon/landscape). The forest images I got here look pretty okay. The blue blooming/fringing is my biggest concern. I was not expecting that at all.

Meeces said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

Mountaingrapher said:

io_bg said:

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

Click to expand...

I am not certain, no. But to me the lines are somehow curved, and I have never seen perspective like that while shooting 10mm (XF 10-24 f/4) or 12mm (Samyang 12mm f/2). I think I've always seen perspective lines going "inward" and not "outward".

Click to expand...

It’s just perspective. The camera is angled downwards, so the lines converge below the horizon. Angle the camera upwards, as people more often do, and they converge above the horizon. With the camera perfectly horizontal they are parallel. The same is true for all lenses, it’s just more noticeable the wider the view. In practice, it means that the shorter the focal length, the less you can tilt away from horizontal before the convergence effect becomes distractingly strong.

Meeces said:

It's a hutch, not a certainty that I have

Click to expand...

I have a hunch that that’s a typo

Click to expand...

A lot of the car show images I was crouched/one knee with slight up angle, or nearly level from the crouch/kneel. I think this focal length will be quite a learning curve. I rented the 10-24 a very very long time ago, and don't recall it having issues- perspective or fringing- but that was a very different environment (slot canyon/landscape). The forest images I got here look pretty okay. The blue blooming/fringing is my biggest concern. I was not expecting that at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see much of that blooming/fringing you mention, but maybe some astro would be a good test?

I've you ever used the Samyang 12mm/2 by any chance? I'm curious to hear about how it compares to the Sigma, beside the 1 stop advantage.

Meeces said:

A lot of the car show images I was crouched/one knee with slight up angle, or nearly level from the crouch/kneel.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have a mix. But they are all just perspective. If the horizon (which can be seen or reliably inferred in many of the images) is above the midpoint of the image the verticals will converge at the bottom; if it is above they will converge at the top.

Meeces said:

I think this focal length will be quite a learning curve. I rented the 10-24 a very very long time ago, and don't recall it having issues- perspective or fringing- but that was a very different environment (slot canyon/landscape).

Click to expand...

Right, and this is largely because landscapes aren’t constructed using Euclidean geometry, so convergence is less apparent. Once you get conventional architecture into the shot, however, it becomes very obvious.

This image, for example, is at 10mm and the camera is tilted downwards (you can just about see the horizon about a third of the way down the image). Had there been any vertical lines in the image you’d see a strong convergence towards the top, but there are none, so the effect is not apparent.



Essentially, if you want verticals to be vertical you must keep the camera horizontal. But with a wide angle what you can do, because it can tak in so much of the view, is a “shift crop”. So for example if you take a photo of a building with the camera horizontal, you’ll have the building in the upper half of the image and just ground in the lower half. But you can, say, crop out the bottom third—equivalent to using a shift lens on a smaller sensor—leaving you with a square image with parallel verticals.

Mountaingrapher said:

Meeces said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

Mountaingrapher said:

io_bg said:

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

Click to expand...

I am not certain, no. But to me the lines are somehow curved, and I have never seen perspective like that while shooting 10mm (XF 10-24 f/4) or 12mm (Samyang 12mm f/2). I think I've always seen perspective lines going "inward" and not "outward".

Click to expand...

It’s just perspective. The camera is angled downwards, so the lines converge below the horizon. Angle the camera upwards, as people more often do, and they converge above the horizon. With the camera perfectly horizontal they are parallel. The same is true for all lenses, it’s just more noticeable the wider the view. In practice, it means that the shorter the focal length, the less you can tilt away from horizontal before the convergence effect becomes distractingly strong.

Mountaingrapher said:

It's a hutch, not a certainty that I have

Click to expand...

I have a hunch that that’s a typo

Click to expand...

A lot of the car show images I was crouched/one knee with slight up angle, or nearly level from the crouch/kneel. I think this focal length will be quite a learning curve. I rented the 10-24 a very very long time ago, and don't recall it having issues- perspective or fringing- but that was a very different environment (slot canyon/landscape). The forest images I got here look pretty okay. The blue blooming/fringing is my biggest concern. I was not expecting that at all.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see much of that blooming/fringing you mention, but maybe some astro would be a good test?

I've you ever used the Samyang 12mm/2 by any chance? I'm curious to hear about how it compares to the Sigma, beside the 1 stop advantage.

Click to expand...

I can see the highlights blooming in the forest images but didn't you say you had a diffusion filter fitted? If so, that's basically what they do!

Probably not fair (or scientific) to test it with additional filters etc. Too many variables that way.

Jeff Biscuits said:

Meeces said:

A lot of the car show images I was crouched/one knee with slight up angle, or nearly level from the crouch/kneel.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have a mix. But they are all just perspective. If the horizon (which can be seen or reliably inferred in many of the images) is above the midpoint of the image the verticals will converge at the bottom; if it is above they will converge at the top.

Jeff Biscuits said:

I think this focal length will be quite a learning curve. I rented the 10-24 a very very long time ago, and don't recall it having issues- perspective or fringing- but that was a very different environment (slot canyon/landscape).

Click to expand...

Right, and this is largely because landscapes aren’t constructed using Euclidean geometry, so convergence is less apparent. Once you get conventional architecture into the shot, however, it becomes very obvious.

This image, for example, is at 10mm and the camera is tilted downwards (you can just about see the horizon about a third of the way down the image). Had there been any vertical lines in the image you’d see a strong convergence towards the top, but there are none, so the effect is not apparent.



Essentially, if you want verticals to be vertical you must keep the camera horizontal. But with a wide angle what you can do, because it can tak in so much of the view, is a “shift crop”. So for example if you take a photo of a building with the camera horizontal, you’ll have the building in the upper half of the image and just ground in the lower half. But you can, say, crop out the bottom third—equivalent to using a shift lens on a smaller sensor—leaving you with a square image with parallel verticals.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the feedback. Good things to ponder.

--
-----
Matt
Fujifilm X-T5 (black and silver).
Prime time- 18mm f/1.4, 33mm, Viltrox 75mm.
2.8 club- 16-55, 50-140.
Rest of the story- 70-300, and 100-400mm, 1.4 ext. and MCEX-11. X-T2 (broken paper weight).

Meeces said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

Mountaingrapher said:

io_bg said:

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

Click to expand...

I am not certain, no. But to me the lines are somehow curved, and I have never seen perspective like that while shooting 10mm (XF 10-24 f/4) or 12mm (Samyang 12mm f/2). I think I've always seen perspective lines going "inward" and not "outward".

Click to expand...

It’s just perspective. The camera is angled downwards, so the lines converge below the horizon. Angle the camera upwards, as people more often do, and they converge above the horizon. With the camera perfectly horizontal they are parallel. The same is true for all lenses, it’s just more noticeable the wider the view. In practice, it means that the shorter the focal length, the less you can tilt away from horizontal before the convergence effect becomes distractingly strong.

Meeces said:

It's a hutch, not a certainty that I have

Click to expand...

I have a hunch that that’s a typo

Click to expand...

A lot of the car show images I was crouched/one knee with slight up angle, or nearly level from the crouch/kneel. I think this focal length will be quite a learning curve. I rented the 10-24 a very very long time ago, and don't recall it having issues- perspective or fringing- but that was a very different environment (slot canyon/landscape). The forest images I got here look pretty okay. The blue blooming/fringing is my biggest concern. I was not expecting that at all.

Click to expand...

I’ve seen some noticeable red-green/blue yellow CA in the out of focus areas along with some of that magenta color cast that is not uncommon with some Sigma lenses with some images from the Sigma 12 (but not so much with these particular examples). The images from this lens look sharp and generally good with nice bokeh but, while some ghosting can be an issue with a bright sun in the frame, I don't typically see these other CA issues with the Viltrox 13.

Erik Baumgartner said:

Meeces said:

Jeff Biscuits said:

Mountaingrapher said:

io_bg said:

Mountaingrapher said:

from the straight lines of the buildings I feel I see quite heavy distortion. The buildings are like not straight at all, they flare...

Click to expand...

Are you sure you're not mistaking perspective distortion with lens distortion?

Click to expand...

I am not certain, no. But to me the lines are somehow curved, and I have never seen perspective like that while shooting 10mm (XF 10-24 f/4) or 12mm (Samyang 12mm f/2). I think I've always seen perspective lines going "inward" and not "outward".

Click to expand...

It’s just perspective. The camera is angled downwards, so the lines converge below the horizon. Angle the camera upwards, as people more often do, and they converge above the horizon. With the camera perfectly horizontal they are parallel. The same is true for all lenses, it’s just more noticeable the wider the view. In practice, it means that the shorter the focal length, the less you can tilt away from horizontal before the convergence effect becomes distractingly strong.

Erik Baumgartner said:

It's a hutch, not a certainty that I have

Click to expand...

I have a hunch that that’s a typo

Click to expand...

A lot of the car show images I was crouched/one knee with slight up angle, or nearly level from the crouch/kneel. I think this focal length will be quite a learning curve. I rented the 10-24 a very very long time ago, and don't recall it having issues- perspective or fringing- but that was a very different environment (slot canyon/landscape). The forest images I got here look pretty okay. The blue blooming/fringing is my biggest concern. I was not expecting that at all.

Click to expand...

I’ve seen some noticeable red-green/blue yellow CA in the out of focus areas along with some of that magenta color cast that is not uncommon with some Sigma lenses with some images from the Sigma 12 (but not so much with these particular examples). The images from this lens look sharp and generally good with nice bokeh but, while some ghosting can be an issue with a bright sun in the frame, I don't typically see these other CA issues with the Viltrox 13.

Click to expand...

I thought a lot about the 13mm, but was a drawn to the smaller/slightly wider (even if just the 1mm), and lighter. The first couple youtube reviews I saw (more like previews) also indicated the Sigma is good for astro.

I definitely don't see any color cast, and am quite pleased with how sharp and nice the bokeh is. I'm gonna give it another serious go this weekend I think and see what I find. I'll see if keeping the diffusion filter off makes a notable difference.

Meeces said:

I thought a lot about the 13mm, but was a drawn to the smaller/slightly wider (even if just the 1mm), and lighter. The first couple youtube reviews I saw (more like previews) also indicated the Sigma is good for astro.

I definitely don't see any color cast, and am quite pleased with how sharp and nice the bokeh is. I'm gonna give it another serious go this weekend I think and see what I find. I'll see if keeping the diffusion filter off makes a notable difference.

Click to expand...

If you have a clear sky and the opportunity to do it, it would be interesting to see how it performs at astro. I have the Viltrox, which is good enough at this for my modest efforts, but it struggles on the coma front.