35 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not better than Nikon, but much cheaper., 23 Dec 2007
By Geoffrey Hamilton - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG ASL - Nikon fit lens (Electronics)
Sigma has been much maligned by the Nikon-brand lens snobs, and not without good reason. The build quality and optical clarity of the average Nikon lens easily trounces the average Sigma.
This particular Sigma lens has been in my bag since 2004 (three years now) and has performed flawlessly in dusty, humid, and rainy conditions. I can't say that about every Nikon lens I have owned.
Don't get me wrong-- this is not a flawless lens. It is weather sealed enough, but I doubt it would survive being dunked in water the way some (but not many) Nikon lenses would. It focuses faster than many Nikon lenses, but slower than competing Silent Wave Motor Nikons. It is quieter than any non-SWM Nikons, and almost as quiet as SWM. It focuses as well as any Nikon f/4.5-5.6 lens in similar lighting conditions.
Now for the flaws. It has more chromatic aberration than Nikon's 12-24mm DX and 14-24mm FX lenses. It isn't as sharp, especially near the edges. But if your maximum print size is 8x10 you'll likely never notice.
UPSIDES: Even though it works at full frame (important for those of us that still shoot film as well as digital) it is much cheaper than Nikons 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 DX lens-- a lens that is only good for DX-sized sensor digital Nikons. It is less than 1/3 the price of the recently released FX (full-frame) 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon lens.
Granted, the professional Nikon 14-24mm lens is clearly the best of the bunch, but most of us can't afford that extravagance. When I bought this lens it was the only 12-24mm lens available, and given the offerings from Nikon and other third-party lens makers, I can't regret this purchase for one moment.
While I'd like to own the new professional Nikon 14-28mm f/2.8 lens, that won't be in my budget in the foreseeable future. My buying advice: take your camera to a good local camera shop and try this lens (and its competitors) for yourself. I'm confident many of you will agree that the Sigma, while it is not the best lens, is good enough and the best compromise-- given the price.
Cheers.
19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent ultrawide, 8 May 2007
By Robert A. Laubach "Pixelator" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG ASL - Nikon fit lens (Electronics)
The Sigma 12-24 is an excellent ultrawide. It is very sharp with very little barrel or pincushion distortion. It is a true 12-24 fullframe with a film SLR (love it with my Nikon N80) or full frame digital slr, and effectively an 18-36 with an APS-sized sensor digital SLR. Excelleent ultrawide for architecture, landscapes etc. At 12mm though, it is so wide that you must be careful of distortion introduced by shooting off-level. This is not to say this particular lens is faulty and distorts, but would be true of any ultrawide lens with this wide degree of coverage. While I have heard much talk of supposed poor Sigma quality control, I have no qualms at all about this lens - It is sturdy, tough, smooth and has performed flawlessly for me for years.
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Extreme wide angle, but..., 10 Sep 2009
By Nick - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG ASL - Nikon fit lens (Electronics)
I use this lens on a full frame camera (D700) - so the review is geared for full frame users. There are wider choices (with relative advantages / disadvantages) on the cropped sensor side - don't get this lens for DX.
Pros:
- the widest rectilinear lens for full frame. The difference in coverage between 12 and 14mm (the next closest candidate, at least for Nikon) is HUGE (from looking at it - at least 15% - 20% more on 12mm).
- vibrant color rendition. I don't know why this is - but compared at the same settings with the 24-120 and a 50mm 1.8, the reds rendered by Sigma are deeper and more vibrant.
- relatively light - only a pound (compare at an arm breaking 2.1 pounds for Nikon 14-24)
- good build construction.
- relatively inexpensive.
Cons:
- Horrible vignetting. The corners are significantly (2+ stops) darker than the center.
- Corner softness at any aperture (just horrible wide open)
- Overall image sharpness. I compared sharpness from this lens with my Nikon 24-120mm VR zoom, which itself is not supposed to be a benchmarch of image quality. The Sigma image is significantly softer throughout the image. Both lenses tested at 24mm, stopped down at f11. It bears to say that the difference in resolving power is greater the closer I placed the lens to the test subject (a textured wall).
- Very flare prone, especially at night with multiple light sources.
- Front element protrudes - so no filters.
I can live with the cons for now because honestly for full frame, there's not much alternative this wide. The closest competitor (Nikon 14-24mm) does not go as wide, it's twice as heavy and twice as pricey. While reports are that the Nikon 14-24 has amazing image quality, it is also not a walkaround lens.