Canon FF lens choice

This is all interesting stuff. My only concern, as all the testers state, is that they are all testing lenses under different lighting conditions (on different bricks).

Ideally - and I realise this is not going to happen - I would like to see all the shots done at the same time, with housed cameras, on swimming pool tiles.

Alex

shot at 17mm, f4, 1/4s, iso 100, tripod mount, mirror lock up, cable release, JPEG.

Sounds like you did everything right I hope you didn't take my comments the wrong way. :oops: I'll join you in being underwhelmed by the performance of this lens. Lots of viginetting and blurry corners. I've never ytied this test but I hope the 12-24mm on a dx sensor looks better than that.

I agree with Alex. Would need to be done under the same conditions to be meaningful.

I've never tried this test but I hope the 12-24mm on a dx sensor looks better than that.

Yeah, but it's still a DX sensor.

Hi Guys,

I'm posting in this thread with the results for the Sigma 12-24 HSM

I shot it on the 1DmkII today, which is a 1.25 crop camera. Sorry, but I don't have a FF canon to test it on.

Here is f4.5 (minimum f-stop) at 12mm:

Very little barrel distortion. Pretty good compared to the Canon.

Crops from lower corners:

Sharpness in the corners could be better, but is at least as good as the shots I've seen from Canon lenses.

Here's the same shots and crops at f8 @ 12mm:

Looks very good at f8

I like this lens because I can use it on any Canon body. It's big, but not much bigger than my Nikon 17-35 used to be. The front element sticks out FAR and it's quite round so I'm worried about flare and I will need to be more careful about using hoods, etc. Although I don't think it should be too much of a problem underwater with a dome and dome hood.

Anyhow, thought you all would like to see this. I'm keeping the lens.

Cheers

James

I've used the lens for one year now (until now just topside) and it took me a while to become satisfied using it. AF works flawlessly on close subjects. But a few meters to infinity it can be pretty unreliable. But I assign this to the enormous DOF (short focal length, 4.5 delivers already a big DOF and in addition less light to the AF system). However in worse cases the AF is not completely off or unusable, just a bit unprecise when locking on small infinity subjects. Pressing everybody's favourite * button twice with two targets having the same great distance (near infinity position) can result in slightly different AF settings. Having HSM it's comfortable to override the AF quickly.

I've housed the lens with an appropriate extension ring matching the lens's optics. I hope AF performs well on the dome's virtual image which is close :-) I will know in two weeks.

I have experienced Corner performance on full frame is naturally poor wide open. But pretty acceptable stopped down taking into account the lens delivers rectilinear 122° FOV. Except the controversial Voigtländer 12mm 5.6 Heliar it's the only 35mm lens doing 122° (and the only SLR lens).

I see the lens as a decent performer on a cropped sensor. On full frame there are some natural drawbacks but on the other hand you get an incomparable Guinness FOV.

If considering an upgrade in the future beyond 1.6 crop the lens is a very nice, solid built and reasonably priced alternative solution to the Canon 10-22mm.

So When my 1Ds arrives (not tomorrow ) I can/will continue using this lens LOL

Julian

I've been thinking about this a lot myself, a doing due diligence. I think it is fair to say you buy Nikkors for the wideangles and Canon for the exotic tele-primes... Others will have their own opinions I'm sure.

I would use the new 100mm 2.8 IS L (Image Stabilized) version!

I would use the new 100mm 2.8 IS L (Image Stabilized) version!

Yes! Nikon wide angle lenses are awesome! Canon makes a 14mm L lens. Get the second (Mark II) version! that is the best (Ultra) wide angle Canon lens...