If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
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?). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Oops, I did it again!
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The True Oops! | L. Credit Where Due T.[_4_] | Digital Photography | 0 | June 2nd 07 06:13 PM |
Oops. I was wrong. | David J. Littleboy | Digital Photography | 9 | April 4th 07 04:13 AM |
oops sorry so much | pug brian | Photographing Nature | 0 | November 6th 05 11:54 PM |
oops | N8urePix | Photographing Nature | 0 | December 6th 04 06:09 PM |