Sigma 12-35 mm: Myth or Real? - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon

04/27/2004 12:01:10 AM · #1

Has anyone heard anything about a Sigma 12-35mm WA zoom lens?

See:
//www.photographyreview.com/35mm%20Zoom/Sigma/PRD_84645_3128crx.aspx#reviews

- 3rd review down.

Is this true, or completely incorrect?

robsmith

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/27/2004 02:48:06 AM · #2

Guess they mean the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 lens, awesome for wide angle shots.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG for Canon

04/27/2004 03:04:21 AM · #3

do you have the 12-24?

But he already had a 12-24, and was saying that he would trade it in for the 12-35 when it came out.

robsmith

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

04/27/2004 03:18:46 AM · #4

Now I'm confused - I don't see any mention of the reviewer already owning the 12-24.

Yes I've had the lens for a couple of months and the 3 images were taken with it.

terje

Apple iPhone

04/27/2004 05:23:14 AM · #5

I own the Canon 17-40mm L and the Sigma 12-24mm lens. Both are awesome, though the glass in the 17-40 is better.

Both come highly recomended.

PS: Don't buy any UV/polarization glass for the 12-24, it will vignett at 12-14mm.

Terje

04/27/2004 08:19:45 AM · #6

Robsmith,
my bad. He has the 17-35, (not the 12-24) and would trade it in for the 12-35.
has anyone even seen this lens?

terje,
if one was going to buy EITHER, what would you buy? weighing up pro's/con's???

terje

Apple iPhone

04/27/2004 08:29:12 AM · #7

I'd say they are both different, and I love them equally much. :-)

17-40 Pro: Sharpness, excellent glass, very light strong (L4) and quality made lens (I've dropped mine in the ground several times without noticing any reduction in quality.)

17-40 Cons: Expensive and only 17mm wide

12-24 Pro: Sharp, 12mm is very wide, not so expensive

12-40 Cons: More distortion at 12mm, doesn't give you a sense of quality when you hold it (a little plastic to be honest), need more light 3.5-5.6 and it's Sigma (gives lower secondhand value).

I think whatever you choose, you will be satisfied. :-)

Terje

04/27/2004 08:41:45 AM · #8

in your experience, do you find that the extra 5mm (8mm on our cameras) makes a big difference?

talking landscapes/portraits?

or, with the Canon, do you find the f4 all the way through is a big difference to the Sigma's 4.5-5.6 ??
- amounts of light coming through??

(by the way your help is invaluable to me right now. Feel special. :))

terje

Apple iPhone

04/27/2004 09:10:05 AM · #9

19mm vs. 27mm with my canon 300D (1.6x)

It's a huge difference as to landscape photos, I've compered the 16-35 vs. 17-40mm and even 1mm is a very noticable difference.

There is a slight difference in light yes, but for landscape you should be fine with 3.5/5.6.

Terje