Real sigma 12-24 samples!!!

[keef]

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

 

[HenkW]

hm, 12-24 has a major blur issue at the right side of the frame (asymmetric)!
Henk

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

--
Photography is all about looking.

 

[keef]

hi

I know nothing about the technology of lenses; but the poblem does seem to be worse on the right than left, as you mentioned. Wouold this be a problem unique to the sample I tested? Or do you think this is a problem with the model design itself?

http://www.waddo.net

Keith

 

[jrosseel]

keef wrote:
Wouold

this be a problem unique to the sample I tested? Or do you think
this is a problem with the model design itself?

http://www.waddo.net

This should definitely be a sample problem. All lenses are designed symmetrically, of course

Actually, the asymmetry shown in your post is so bad that I assume that someone dropped the lens from a decent height. No quality control of any manufacturer is that bad that they let this pass.

Another remark: a 12mm rectilinear "full-frame" is a very troublesome lens to design. Adding zoom to it makes it even more difficult. Just look around how many 12mm's there are out there, and that should tell you something about this design being nonn-obvious. Fish-eyes are way simpler because they wipe the problematic areas under the carpet. For this reason, you cannot compare the 17-40 or the 15mm fisheye to the 12-24. The design specs and complexity are just too far apart to make it a fair comparison.

Also keep in mind that the wider you go, the more trouble one has correcting the corners. Just look at MTF curves of ANY wide angle, zoom or not. They all drop sharply towards the corners. For this reason, it's also not fair to compare the Sigma 12-24 (a > 120 degree lens) to the NIkon 12-24 (a 100 degree lens).

Or to put it otherwise: you should never expect too much "quality" from a 122 degree lens in the corners. This is a "special effect" lens (especially on a FF camera) to make some extraordinary shots where the ability to get the shot is more important than the absolute sharpness.

JanR

 

[Malcolm Stewart]

--
Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

 

[keef]

--
Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm

 

[R.P.F.]

Malcolm Stewart wrote:

every one else can NT

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

--
Cheers, R.P.F.

 

[Max Fun]

Assuming that the assymetry is a problem with the demonstration piece itself, I think there's potential in this lens. From your samples, it seems like it's usuable at f8 short and f5.6 seems fairly usable long. It's kind of like the situation with the DRebel kit lens. I guess by definition, this is not a great lens, but if the price is not too expensive, I think it's a great option for people with 1.6x crop cameras. Do you have an estimate of how much it costs?

Cheers!

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

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

 

[keef]

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

 

[Ray Chen]

If you want people to visit your home page, put up some nice "stuff" and they'll come. Making your samples easy to find will help everyone out and much appreciated, as if we don't already have too much cr@p of our own to deal with already. If the absolute page hit count matters so much to you, I can set up a bot and give you a million hit in no time. Just ask...

Thanks for the samples, BTW.

--
Ray Chen

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

 

[keef]

its around 66 000 yen

 

[R.P.F.]

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

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.

 

[keef]

i have received many emails from people who have enjoyed my stuff, weather idiots like you find it nice or not.

if clicking "photo stuff" and "lens tests" is so difficult i suggest you buy yourself a nice book with big pictures and stay away from my site.

This is not a question of hits. This is a question of allowing people to explore if they wish.

it is also a question of respect. maybe ill come over to your house some night and climb in the back window.

i repeat this is my site and if you wish to go there you should show a minimum of respect. Many sites do not allow direct links. I simply request it.

can you understand any of this?

please dont bother to answer.

http://www.waddo.net

keith

 

[keef]

if it was just a misunderstanding of course it is no big deal

hope the tests were of use to you

http://www.waddo.net

keith

 

[Ray Chen]

i repeat this is my site and if you wish to go there you should
show a minimum of respect. Many sites do not allow direct links. I
simply request it.

Fine. It is your site, and I can live with it if I am not welcome there. You don't have to be hostile, as you didn't explain what kind of person your are on your original post. If you had explained, I would of just waited for another way to see some Sigma samples. Hack, if casinos can make you go through their slot machines just to get into their buffets, I don't see if you are any worse than them. No thanks, but this is a game that I don’t play…

--
Ray Chen

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

 

[Chris Maddock]

Assuming that the assymetry is a problem with the demonstration
piece itself, I think there's potential in this lens. From your
samples, it seems like it's usuable at f8 short and f5.6 seems
fairly usable long. It's kind of like the situation with the DRebel
kit lens. I guess by definition, this is not a great lens, but if
the price is not too expensive, I think it's a great option for
people with 1.6x crop cameras. Do you have an estimate of how much
it costs?

List price in the UK is £570, so it'll probably be somewhere close to $570 in the US. Tourist exchange rates don't get used when they set UK and US prices, 1:1 is more the norm :-(

--
KRs
Chris

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

 

[tasty donuts]

i and others have already been through this routine with him in another thread. this guy is a joke. he must really think his site is the greatest thing in the world because 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. or, maybe he is trying to get hits to pump up the site counter for his home page. who knows. who cares. you have much better things to do with your time then argue with someone so infantile.

i repeat this is my site and if you wish to go there you should
show a minimum of respect. Many sites do not allow direct links. I
simply request it.

Fine. It is your site, and I can live with it if I am not welcome
there. You don't have to be hostile, as you didn't explain what
kind of person your are on your original post. If you had
explained, I would of just waited for another way to see some Sigma
samples. Hack, if casinos can make you go through their slot
machines just to get into their buffets, I don't see if you are any
worse than them. No thanks, but this is a game that I don’t play…

 

[Just Looking]

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

Second, you're quick to knock a lens based on indoor high-ISO handheld shots with a Bayer camera with too much noise and aggressive noise reduction.

Results would certainly be of interest. When can we get some?

It's too bad you took your Nikon samples away. Bad as they are, we could at least compare. Your logic baffles me still. OK to knock it if it's Sigma, but need to retract it if it's Nikon?

j

 

[Just Looking]

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

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

 

[dpophyte]

This is my personal web site

i asked for no direct links

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

I for one don't understand the point of it. I'm not saying you don't have a right to make that request, but...

What is your concern? That people won't visit the rest of your site?

After years of putting up webpages and looking at http access logs, I've learned that the best thing to do is get people to the site however you can and then make it easy for them to navigate to other pages. ""lateral browsing", you might call it. Your "lens tests" page does a very poor job of that in two ways. First, it doesn't point to any interesting content (the only exitpoints are generic "back to..." links), and second the JPEG images are displayed directly in the browser. You should wrap them in HTML at reduced resolution with a couple 100% crops and enough of a nav system to get visitors anywhere in your site, then have the original JPEG as a link off of that page. That will save bandwidth (many people would be satisfied with the reduced image and a full 100% crops) and provide maximum interest.

Personally, I think dragging people past a bunch of stuff they aren't interested in (whether it is good or bad) is counterproductive. It will make them less likely to browse the rest of your site. If you wow them with the first thing they see, they'll have a good impression and will want to see what other good stuff you have. But if force them past a bunch of stuff they aren't interested in, they'll only want to get past it as quickly as possible. They'll say, "this site has a bunch of stuff I'm not interested in... get me the one bit I am interested in and get me off this site." And that isn't a thought you want your visitors to have.

You also know that you can turn off directory indexing on your Debian+Apache 2.0.48 server. You may want to do that to keep people from for example going to indexpages on your server.

If you are really committed to the idea that people should start with your home page... why don't you use a little bit of script to make it so? Just set a session cookie on the homepage,and check that cookie on every other page. If you don't find it, redirect the browser back "home". Then you won't have to act like an a/ss on this forum.

--
Remove me from this land of slaves,
Where all are fools, and all are knaves,
Where every knave and fool is bought,
Yet kindly sells himself for nought;
-- Jonathan Swift