Oops, I did it again!

On 10/17/2010 4:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
Oops, I did what again?

I foolishly spent some of my hard-earned pounds sterling on a lens ...
... a lens made by Sigma!

It's a 12-24mm f/4.6-5.6 EX DG HSM in Nikon AF-D mount. I borrowed
one a couple of weeks ago and the focusing motor broke. But I was
reasonably pleased with the results. So I tried another one, and
bought it.

Strengths: It is optically quite competent with very good sharpness
across the frame at 1/8 to f/11. It has remarkably good flare
resistance for a lens of its type. The rectilinear distortion is
remarkably well controlled.

Weaknesses: It is soft at the edges wide open. It has strong
vignetting wide open at 12mm which reduces to next to nothing at f/8.
The zoom ring has varying resistance to being turned depending which
focal length you start from and which way you go. The fixed lens
hood is crudely shaped and would benefit from more careful design. The
front lens cap is an abomination consisting of a push-on cylindrical
adaptor with a thread for an 82mm dia. lens cap (a one piece cap would
be better as no-one in their right mind would use filters on a lens
like this). It is a Sigma so the build quality is dubious.

Overall: A pleasant surprise, until it breaks. ;-)

So why did I buy it? It is a cheap, temporary replacement for my
AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G. I also bought a Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 and
a well-used Nikon D3 body for the same reason.

When the situation regarding the successor to the Nikon D700 is
clarified early in 2011, I will make some longer term decisions
regarding what equipment to lease. Until then, I'm shooting rather
more cheaply. ;-)


And you ask us to believe what you say. Sheesh!
what BS.

--
Peter

"peter" wrote:

And you ask us to believe what you say. Sheesh!

I can't speak to whether Mr. Polson actually owns the lens (or
any other gear), but I've owned a Sigma 12-24mm for quite a
while now. He's not that far off.

I disagree with his assessment of flare resistance and of
the hood in general. The only varying resistance I've found
in the zoom ring is that it takes slightly more effort when
zooming out from about 16mm to 12mm.

To me, the back lens cap is more of a design flaw than the
front one. I _have_ used a GND filter on this lens, but
only at about 20-24mm and with a DX format dSLR.

I have no complains about build quality, but sample variance
is another matter. A friend of mine and I swapped copies for
a couple of shots as an experiment -- he ended returning his.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

On 2010-10-17 15:05:19 -0700, "Michael Benveniste" said:

"peter" wrote:

And you ask us to believe what you say. Sheesh!

I can't speak to whether Mr. Polson actually owns the lens (or
any other gear), but I've owned a Sigma 12-24mm for quite a
while now. He's not that far off.

I disagree with his assessment of flare resistance and of
the hood in general. The only varying resistance I've found
in the zoom ring is that it takes slightly more effort when
zooming out from about 16mm to 12mm.

To me, the back lens cap is more of a design flaw than the
front one. I _have_ used a GND filter on this lens, but
only at about 20-24mm and with a DX format dSLR.

I have no complains about build quality, but sample variance
is another matter. A friend of mine and I swapped copies for
a couple of shots as an experiment -- he ended returning his.

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot at
the rear, not threaded front screw-on types.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Michael Benveniste wrote:
"peter" wrote:

And you ask us to believe what you say. Sheesh!

...I've owned a Sigma 12-24mm for quite a
while now. He's not that far off.

I like mine. The build quality problems are with cheap surfaces wearing
off like the glued-on felt that holds the slip-on hood got all torn &
useless long ago and the somewhat rubberized 'powder coat' finish has
peeled off so that it looks quite battered from many years of regular
use. Also, it's got a bunch of dust inside now, which doesn't cause any
obvious apparent blotches but surely must be adding flare. Supposedly
the front hood cap is for using on DX but yeah, that's not the best use
for the lens. In general it's built like a tank though with AF-S
internal focus more with manual override, no switches to flip, etc.

I'd be curious to see a side by side comparison with the new DX
super-wide which has equivalent field of view (is that Sigma too?).

"Savageduck" wrote:

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot at
the rear, not threaded front screw-on types.

12-24mm with 82mm Polarizer:
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/12-24.jpg

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

"Michael Benveniste" wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot at the
rear, not threaded front screw-on types.

12-24mm with 82mm Polarizer:
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/12-24.jpg

Only on a crop camera or 21mm and longer focal lengths on FF.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 2010-10-17 19:13:08 -0700, "Michael Benveniste" said:

"Savageduck" wrote:

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot at
the rear, not threaded front screw-on types.

12-24mm with 82mm Polarizer:
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/12-24.jpg

OK!
I get it. 82mm threaded onto the slip-on lens cap gizmo.

However the cut-gel filter slot still exists, and the lens is delivered
with a metal template for cutting those gel filters.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Michael Benveniste" wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote:

IIRC the Sigma 12-24mm only accomodated cut-gel filters in a slot at
the rear, not threaded front screw-on types.

12-24mm with 82mm Polarizer:
http://wemightneedthat.biz/Images/12-24.jpg


What possible use is a polariser on a lens of this focal length range?
Even at 24mm on APS-C, there are very few shots where a polariser
would give a useful result.

Polarizers reduce specular reflections from foliage resulting in far better
(more saturated) rendition of the green of the foliage. It's a big
difference. Very useful. The shots in the big, glossy, color landscape
magazine are almost all taken with a polarizer. It even works with wide
angles.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Bruce" wrote:

I tested the built-in hood with a point light source at 12mm on the
edge of the lens's angle of view on full frame (Nikon D3).

I eagerly await your posting of your test.

I note that you use APS-C so your experience will be entirely
different

Ever hear of this stuff called 35mm film? I bought the 12-24mm
well before I bought a dSLR.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

Bruce wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I like mine. The build quality problems are with cheap surfaces wearing
off like the glued-on felt that holds the slip-on hood got all torn&
useless long ago and the somewhat rubberized 'powder coat' finish has
peeled off so that it looks quite battered from many years of regular
use. Also, it's got a bunch of dust inside now, which doesn't cause any
obvious apparent blotches but surely must be adding flare.


How many years have you had yours, and what sort of use has it had?

5 years, and it gets tossed in my bag pretty much every day. One of my
most used lenses. The Nikon 14-24 seems too awkwardly large to use in
public, besides it didn't exist 5 years ago, neither did the D700 so
yeah I got it for the D200 and the guy at the camera shop shook his head
asking if I really wanted that lens.

BTW, there's no rear filter slot that I can see.


I ask because, given past experience with Sigma glass, I don't have a
lot of faith in its longevity. ;-)

It's surprisingly good optically, though, while it lasts.