JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 178000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
Cons: Maximum aperture, border sharpness, inability to accept filters.
Opinion: It is embarrassing to admit that I own three ultra-wides at the moment, of the three I think that this lens is the least sharp but that is not to say that it isn't sharp, the sample images below show that the sharpness of this lens is more than adequate to make wonderful images. The other two lenses being the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS and the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 are just a bit sharper. The Sigma does things that the others can't because of the 12mm wide focal length, it delivers great photographs and until the Canon 11-24 came out it was the widest rectilinear zoom lens available for full frame cameras. Personally I do not care to spend the money for the Canon 11-24 and based on some of the reviews that I have read about that lens I am not certain that it would be a better performer than the Sigma. Some of the outstanding points about this lens is that color rendering and contrast is very good, and distortion is very well controlled. Distortion is evident at 12mm but by 16mm where most ultrawides are at their widest distortion is minimal. One very big plus for me is that I own both Canon formats, full and crop frames, with this lens in my bag will never feel the need to buy an array of lenses cover both cameras, the wide end of this lens is still plenty wide on my crop frame camera and the lens covers me up to 24mm where my 24-70mm lens pics up. I recommend this lens for those who want to get really really wide or who like me own both formats and don't always carry your full frame camera body.
Pros: Center-middle-border resolution, low CA, well bulit.
Cons: The FX corners can not reach too high resolution. Lens cap.
Opinion: Widest rectlinear UWA for Nikon FX. Generally very good image quality. Just the FX corners can not reach too high resolution.
Acceptable size, weight and price.
I use ND1000 filters often. For me, the size is important. From 15mm, a normal 82mm filter is usable with some DIY modification.
A little mistake from the designers. The lens cap can slips down, because do not have any lock.
I recommend this lens.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Excellent angle of view, characteristic. Good construction. Autofocus relatively fast and accurate. Excellent image quality (but see flaws below). Very fun to use. Also excellent on DX machine even if the angle to 12 mm is sacrificed.
Cons:The light enters in a "strange" way giving frequent big problems of flare and, easily, large areas of whites "burnt" (also impossible to recover from Raw). In several cases the angles are very soft, especially the one in the lower left (I checked that it had no calibration problems, I think it does not have). It is heavy and cumbersome and at least when I took it years ago it was definitely expensive.
Opinion:When I took it (I think 2012 or 13) had the greatest angle of view of all, and I was fascinated just reading it here on Juza, and looking at his shots. I came from a similar experience with a Sigma 10-20 on DX machine (I had it on the D300) but this is another level. It's a damn fun lens to use, but not easy to tame. Just a little and you find yourself invaded by the flares (with everything that to me, in moderation, not even displeased). Worse still, you find yourself with areas of the photo (especially the clouds) in which, even with correct exposure, the highlights go to be blessed, with horrible white patches and sometimes impossible to recover even with raw miraculous converter on the subject. It's like it's got some sort of built-in contrast amplifier. Another serious problem, the cursed bottom left corner, which often becomes so soft as to push me to cut a piece of photos or to give inside of a clone stamp, as long as the element can "replace" easily (I know, a lawn or pebbles). I thought it could be done but doing other checks didn't seem to me, and then I just learned to live with it. I do not use it with filters, I know it is difficult and expensive, Suprassiedo. Some times I have carried it around even with DX machine, and while losing the peculiarity of the super-angle to 12 mm, the results were good and I enjoyed it.
Pros:Focal range-weight-accurate construction-excellent value for money
Cons:Flare.
Opinion:Also advised to those who do not have problems with wallets, but can not afford to put in the bag a tool (even focal but brighter) that weighs almost double. The sharpness is pretty good. The reduced brightness is not a problem if you use it for the landscape, where-usually-you diaphragm looking for greater depth of field. Bought online at €450.00, but with no doubt value guarantee. Rated 9 (8 to glass and 10 at price/weight/focal range). P.S. the inability to use screw filters covers all wide angles for F.F. less than 15 mm and should be long-time, so it is a defect that is superfluous to report.
Opinion:It is a more than honest and very versatile optics appreciable on the APS format, but also on the FF does not disfigure. Used at 12 (FF) it returns all too ' wide-angle ' images where the sides undergo a marked perspective deformation that can be too heavy (it writes one that eats bread and wide angles). However, in the end it is an optics with an indispensable focal excursion. The distortion is well controlled, the flare is quite sensitive but still acceptable, the sharpness at 24 Mpix is good, while at 36 Mpix, for those who have made the eye on ' pro ' lenses, it does not scream of wonder but is more than enough, closed to F8 is good. What you do appreciate is the small size. The most visible difference compared to its predecessor (also the one more than honest) is the color rendition of the images which is less hot and probably a slightly better contrast (I'll probably write... because this might be more a sensation than Other). Although visibly lower for sharpness than the mammoth Nikkor 14-24 f2,8 or sigma 12-24 F4, it offers an indispensable lightness and ease of use that allow you to fit it even in a kit to carry in the mountains. This is the absolute reason why I do not want to change it. Vote: The overall rating currently assigns him a 9.2, well... we know that the evaluations of this site suffer from an upward compression, which in fact mixes the good and less good. In my opinion is a good optics, which deserves a good 8 but does not have the professional characteristics that should have a good optics/excellent IE 9 or 10, but... adjusting to the criteria of the site, I check a 9.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
