Sigma 12-24 on crop
- Thread starter G-Dubs
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 11,381
- Location
- Bucks
well its a super wide lens but your kinda turning it into a non-wide lens, why not just get a crop lens in the same range?? or a FF camera 
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,298
- Location
- Bristol
You don't think 12mm on crop is wide??
OP: There shouldn't be any problems, if anything it should be sharper across the frame because it's not using the edges of the glass. I don't really use 10/11mm on my Canon so 12mm should be more than wide enough. I don't use it for landscapes though, so not sure how useful 10/11mm would be for you.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,315
- Location
- Bristol
We use a Sigma 10-20mm on a 60D and the 10mm is wide 
. No disadvantage really, it's just a 1.7x crop so yours will be an effective 20-40mm.
. No disadvantage really, it's just a 1.7x crop so yours will be an effective 20-40mm.Cheers, there are a few others I was thinking of, namely the 2 other Sigmas, both of which are 10-20s and one with a fixed f3.5. The other is the Tamron 10-24 which is the cheapest of the lot. Any thoughts???
We use a Sigma 10-20mm on a 60D and the 10mm is wide
Many thanks any thoughts on above options? I'm probably going to the bay for them as I can't afford new. The canon and the sigma 12-24 both seem to be going for £400, with both the sigma 10-24 f4.0-5.6 and the Tamron 10-24 f3.5-4.0 going for about £300.
I'm thinking if I can get the sigma 12-24 for about £400 i've got a good deal but don't want to spend more than I have to. as on paper the Tamron looks a better lens
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,298
- Location
- Bristol
We use a Sigma 10-20mm on a 60D and the 10mm is wide
*1.6x, so roughly 19mm-38mm, but yeah basically what he said.
Get yourself on TalkPhotography and start posting images/whatnot so that you can use the classifieds (I don't think there's a minimum post requirement, or it's really low, but they don't like people going on just to use classifieds). There's been quite a few of the 10-22mm going for about £360, and it's probably safer than the bay, and you can safely assume that the equipment would have been well looked after.
But I haven't really heard much about the Tamron so I'd give that a miss. If you really don't want to stretch to £360 or so for the Canon or 12-24mm then you can get the 10-20mm for less than £250 I think, but I'd spend the extra and get the Canon. I don't know enough about the f/3.5 Sigma to compare it, but I think the consensus is that it's not really worth the price increase.
Edit: The Tokina that ManCuBus mentioned is another choice that I've seen gets good reviews. Also, the Tokina 11-17mm, but that one is a lot more limiting, and only get that if you NEED f/2.8.
Last edited:
I've used the 12-24 on a 300d, 30d, 60d and 5dmk3. I actually preferred it on the crop as its a bit too wide on FF for my tastes.
If you have a look on my Flickr page below and search tags you should find a couple. I know I have 2 photos on there. Think the others are only on Da if I haven't deleted them.
If you have a look on my Flickr page below and search tags you should find a couple. I know I have 2 photos on there. Think the others are only on Da if I haven't deleted them.
Last edited:
2 questions:
Is 12mm wide enough format needs?
Why go for the sigma 12-24 when there must be a dozen alternatives, e.g. Canon 10-22mm would be my best bet, or sigma 10-20mm f/4.5 for a budget option.
There is nothing special about the sigma 12-24, it is only interesting n full frame because it is so wide but optically it is nothing special.
Is 12mm wide enough format needs?
Why go for the sigma 12-24 when there must be a dozen alternatives, e.g. Canon 10-22mm would be my best bet, or sigma 10-20mm f/4.5 for a budget option.
There is nothing special about the sigma 12-24, it is only interesting n full frame because it is so wide but optically it is nothing special.
Think you've mistyped a bit at the beginning, not sure what you mean.
You're right about it being nothing special though. It's actually, optically, my least accurate lens. It's soft at the edges and more so on full frame as that REALLY brings it out. It's best used at F8-F11, and for landscape or artistic vehicle/aeroplane shots. It's definitely more of an artistic use lens. It's definitely got it's place in a kitbag, but it is by far my least used lens. The mkII is a better version, but not by all that much.
{edit} I should add a little context there. The lens is nice and does a good job if used correctly, and I've had a lot of joy from it. I just rarely find myself in a position where I need it. Unless I plan on a specific shot the lens stays at home. Also when I say it's my least accurate, that's a bit unfair as I'm now comparing that to L series prime lenses.
If money allows I'd go with the expensive Canon 14mm
And if my money allowed, that's what I'd do 
{edit} Just found the ONLY HDR shot I've ever done and it was taken with the 12-24
http://niallallen.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=96#/dxehfi
Town square by Niall Allen, on Flickr
I seem to remember having to sharpen this a bit.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 17,315
- Location
- Bristol
1.6x, I stand corrected
For your reference, these were shot @ 10mm on a 60D:
For your reference, these were shot @ 10mm on a 60D: