sigma 12-24mm v1 and v2 for full frame camera

[aalex]

:efelant:hi guys what do you think of these version 1 and 2 lenses?would appreciate your opinions. cheers

[Roosta]

Can't help with the sigma, what is it that's dragging you toward the sigma? what type of pictures are you looking to use either for?

[JM Tran]

I have had 2 of the version 1s, the first lens - before I lost it - was a tad sharper than the 2nd which I bought as replacement.

For my kind of work with it, weddings and PJ freelance work overseas, they are very good lenses offering something that no other lenses are able to match - 12mm rectilinear on an FF camera:) For landscape stuff its sharp from f9 onwards but anything below f9 you should not shoot landscapes with it. For weddings I can get away at f6.3 etc indoors such as churches and receptions for an ultra wide shot using ambient lighting, albeit with a high ISO to compensate.

If the new version is even sharper optically, then its a win win!

[Tannin]

Why buy the Sigma? Simply, because there is nothing, repeat nothing else you can buy that is anywhere near as wide unless you cross-dress over to Nikonland and get the benchmark 14-24 which, by all accounts, is the sort of extraordinarily good lens that makes people sell their rigs and switch brands. In Canon, there is nothing wider in a zoom than the 16-35. At 12mm, the Sigma is in a whole world of its own which not even the Nikkor 14-24 can enter.

Unfortunately, the Mark 1 is consistently rated as soft by all the quality sites, and user comments echo this - JM's post above confirms this.

The new Mark II is said to be better, but there don't seem to be any really useful reviews of it yet - hell, until Bryan at The Digital Picture give any lens the thumbs up I am always a bit doubtful.

The question is how much better? I'd like a full frame ultra-wide myself, but I have not bought one because none of them really appeal -

The Canon 16-35/2.8 is expensive and I don't need or want f/2.8 in an ultra-wide - that's just extra cost and weight.
The Canon 17-40/4 is not very wide. Nice and cheap though.
The Tokina 16-28/2.8 is a bit short and very, very heavy considering what it is
The Sigma 12-24 is very soft.

All in all, I have decided that the best ultra-wide solution is to keep my old 50D and use a Canon 10-22 and a Tokina 10-17. Given the excellent quality of those two lenses, it looks as if a Mark 1 Sigma 12-24 wouldn't actually achieve a great deal other than be extra wide.

All of this is why I'll be very interested to learn more about the Mark II Sigma.

[aalex]

Thanks everyone for the input. I have heard that the version 1 is better in controlling CA and distortion . The IQ of the second version is not significantly improve even with the new hybrid glass introduced in the second version. Nevertheless, I would actually leaning towards this lens as compared to sigma or canon 15mm prime due to its super wide angle. 12mm seems awesome! What do you guys think?

[Andrew]

Ive had this lens for a few years now. Used almost exclusively with my 5D.
Always been very happy with the results.