Pro/Cons for Sigma 12-24 II & Canon 16-35 II

Thank you all for your input and for the pictures. The landscapes from Sigma look great and the architectural shoots are ok.

I was well biased into buying the Canon before starting this thread, now Sigma looks like the more likely candidate.

jrarsenault wrote:

In reference to your last question with respect to 'space', I am assuming that you are asking about how much of the photo is lost when distortion is corrected.

This is exactly what i meant.

Your corrected sample doesn't show much “loss of picture estate” but the original is not so badly distorted either. Was the picture taken at 12mm? Thanks for taking the time to post them!

The image below was downloaded from the samples posted in the review of Sigma 12-24 II at lenstip.com (http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig12-24II/sig12-24_fot09.JPG)

Notice the loss of picture space is quite severe after applying the corrections. I know it’s probably the worst case scenario with parallel lines at both edges of the picture. I wonder if 16-35 would do any better.

Original @12mm from lenstip.com

distortions corrected

I know there's room for improvement in terms of correcting the above but it's beyond the point.

Your corrected sample doesn't show much “loss of picture estate” but the original is not so badly distorted either. Was the picture taken at 12mm? Thanks for taking the time to post them!

The image below was downloaded from the samples posted in the review of Sigma 12-24 II at lenstip.com (http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig12-24II/sig12-24_fot09.JPG)

Notice the loss of picture space is quite severe after applying the corrections. I know it’s probably the worst case scenario with parallel lines at both edges of the picture. I wonder if 16-35 would do any better.

I know there's room for improvement in terms of correcting the above but it's beyond the point.

In your pictures you are not (only) correcting the lens distortion, but somehow the perspective (I don't know the exact name). That correction has nothing to do with the lens (unless you have a tilt-shift lens), so you will have to apply that correction anyway.

vvv14 wrote:

Your corrected sample doesn't show much “loss of picture estate” but the original is not so badly distorted either. Was the picture taken at 12mm? Thanks for taking the time to post them!

The image below was downloaded from the samples posted in the review of Sigma 12-24 II at lenstip.com (http://pliki.optyczne.pl/sig12-24II/sig12-24_fot09.JPG)

Notice the loss of picture space is quite severe after applying the corrections. I know it’s probably the worst case scenario with parallel lines at both edges of the picture. I wonder if 16-35 would do any better.

I know there's room for improvement in terms of correcting the above but it's beyond the point.

I didn't realize but my photo example of the river boat was taken at 24mm... I just took a look at the original EXIF. I thought I had taken it at 12mm.... sorry about that. Regardless, the 'lost space' would be greater on the Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm than the Canon @ 16mm simply because the Sigma is wider causing distortions to be greater.

Going back to my original post, I use the Sigma 12-24 when I really need something to be shot very wide. Sigma fills that need and then some. The 5mm difference between my Sigma and Canon 17-40 is huge. I use the Canon 17-40 for just about everything else. Here is an example of something I took with the Canon 17-40 (slightly corrected):



Canon 17-40 with slight distortion correction

There are some photos in which the distortion kind of works and I leave it in for creative purposes. Other times I will simply correct it as much as I can. It all depends on the photo.

With the Sigma 12-24, I find I can be very creative. Taking a facial shot up close can produce some interesting results. Taking a person's 'thumbs up' very close and their face in the background is also creative. There is a lot of fun to be had with UWA's.

I wish you good luck on your buying decision.

vvv14 wrote:

Robert, thanks for your reply.

I own both the Canon 17-40 and the Sigma 12-24 Mk II.

Am I correct to assume you acquired the Canon prior to Sigma? You plan on keeping both?

I will be keeping both.  Not sure which I had first as I previously owned a Sigma 12-24 Mk I.

When I need a wider lens than the Canon (quite often when photographing covered bridges) I use the Sigma.

Does this mean that you prefer Canon at 17mm and over?

Nor really.  For IQ I do not prefer one over the other.  At f/13-16 I do not see a big difference (I am not a pixel peeper but have sold prints up to 24" X 36" in size).  For me photographing covered bridges the 17-40 covers the range I need 90% of the time.  I very seldon have to change lenses.  If I used the 12-24 I would change lenses to my 24-105 maybe about 40% of the time.  So, it is for convience that I like the 17-40 for covered bridges.  When I go on long hikes and want to minimize weight I take the 12-24.

Now, perspective distortion is an other story on loss of image space but that is what you have to work with all UWA lenses, including primes.

Can you roughly quantify the loss on image space in any way or is it more like a "case by case" scenario (i.e. shoot at 12mm and after distortion correction looks like it was shoot 14mm)?

No, for the sigma 12-24 shooting at 12 mm you loose practically nothing due to optical distortion correction.

You loose image space depending on how far from horizontal you are shooting due to perspective distortion.  Point any 12 mm lens (prime, zoom, any manufacturer) at 10 degrees above horizontal and you will get the same amount of loss due to perspective correction.  This is a matter of physics, not lens quality.  The only way you can get around this is with perspective control lenses which are very expensive.

As I mentioned earlier, when I posted the question here, I was almost sure Canon was the better option. After reading your comments and looking at your samples, I stopped worrying that Sigma might not be on par with Canon in terms of corner sharpness and distortions. It might not have the edge in terms of IQ or speed but the extra 4mm are huge, it puts it in a different category.

I put an order for Sigma last night, it should arrive sometime next week. I’m sure it will find a permanent place in my camera bag. For the future, should I require the ultimate sharpness and quality I might consider 17-TS. However, I hope I’ll keep my sanity and invest the money in something wiser.

Once again, thank you all for sharing your experience, it definitely help me decide on this occasion. I’ll get back with pictures and impressions as soon as it arrives.

Cheers!

Sigma arrived this morning. 12mm is shocking! I owned Canon’s 10-22mm a while back before full frame, but it was nothing like this one. It’s a completely new shooting experience.

I only had the time to take a few snaps outside, first impressions are very good.

Samples below are all at 12mm.









Fleour - one of my 5 cats. (cropped)



Thanks GtoJon,

I'm sure 16-35mm lens would do as good if not better job (but surely not as wide!) than Sigma.

I noticed Sigma can be soft at edges when shooting up to f5.6, but since I intend to shoot mostly landscapes it shouldn't be an issue. I'm happy with it.

I have owned, tested and shot with the following ultrawide lenses.

Samyang 14 2.8, simga 12-24 I, canon 16-35, canon 16-35II, canon 17-40, canon 15mm fe 2.8, canon 24 tse II, and nikon 14-24.

There aren't many WA lenses missing from that set. Everybody seems to agree with you that Nikon has the best WA zoom out there. I haven't tried it yet and using it with an adapter on a Canon body would be too extreme for me.

As I already purchased the Sigma, i'll stick with it for a good while before I'll consider another WA lens. I know this lens might be a good bit off from my initial goal (ultimate sharpness and image quality for a WA zoom) stated at the beginning of the thread, but I came to realise first, as you put it, "much of the difference is academic" and second - I think Sigma will be more fun to use.

StickmanBangkok wrote:

I played around with a friend's Sigma 12-24 II tonight and was quite impressed. It was sharper than I thought it would be and it renders the colours nicely. If I was in the market for an ultra wide I think I would be quite happy with it.

Yeah, I choose it too over Canon, mainly for the extra 4mm at the wide end. I only have it for a week and I didn't get a chance to shoot with it yet (bar some samples posted above). While so far I am very happy with it, I realised that probably I won't use the zoom as much as I thought. So maybe I was better off with the highly recommended Samyang 14mm at less than half the price.

Anyways, the main priority now is to go out and shoot with my new Sigma.

I’m very pleased to have an UWA in my kit. And it’s not because it’s a Sigma or that it goes as wide as 12mm. It’s because it opens many new opportunities for shooting.

Hi thanx fo r sharing i too want  to go for sigma 12-24 !! Now u have fair bit of exp

Do u recommend it

Thnx in advance

Thanks all for sharing the info here - I'm now torn between the Sigma 12-24mm and a Samyang tilt-shift 24mm......

I reckon the Canon 14mm is too expensive for me as I will only use this lens a little bit at weddings.