Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art Lens (Nikon)

I do architectural photography and shoot about 20 jobs per month. Some jobs may require very large prints. Most are for the web. I've been surprised so many times that I assume every shot on every job needs to be perfect because you never know which one they might pick for a large print or crop out a small portion for their use. I've had architects win national competitions with Photos commercial restrooms! With that in mind I've read a few reviews and found some test results of the Sigma lens and have also used the lens in my workflow. My conclusion is the lens is good. I'm comparing it to a Nikkor 14-24mm. In the sigma there are waves of sharpness and waves of less sharpness whcih I would atribute to the aspherical lenses. The Nikkor not as much. This is noticable ... MoreI do architectural photography and shoot about 20 jobs per month. Some jobs may require very large prints. Most are for the web. I've been surprised so many times that I assume every shot on every job needs to be perfect because you never know which one they might pick for a large print or crop out a small portion for their use. I've had architects win national competitions with Photos commercial restrooms! With that in mind I've read a few reviews and found some test results of the Sigma lens and have also used the lens in my workflow. My conclusion is the lens is good. I'm comparing it to a Nikkor 14-24mm. In the sigma there are waves of sharpness and waves of less sharpness whcih I would atribute to the aspherical lenses. The Nikkor not as much. This is noticable a 100% view of my files made with a Metabones Mk IV EF Canon adapter on a Sony A7R2 at 42 megs (The auto focus is just OK.). The waves of different looking details issue isn't a deal breaker and even if one of my clients would ask for a 48 print I would not be concerned. The focus distance is VERY Critical with this and needs to be verified in the view finder as with all wide lenses. On a 42 meg file you can eaisily see there is a point of focus and the depth of field is a fantasy. But that's on interior shots when you look at the image with a very critical eye much like the guy at printing press looks at the alignment of the half tones with a loupe or a fine art photographer looks at each image for best focus. Exteriors can be focused at a distance of about 30 feet and depth of field will carry the focus. I have tested this lens at f/9 down to f/16 and its decent. The colors are a bit different that the Nikkor and will take tweaking in my work flow to fix. The contrast is good and the distortion in my sample so far is much better controlled that the Nikkor. There is a slight change in distortion as you change zoom settings. The main thing I was looking for is focus shift when stopping down and zooming. So far my test and real world jobs show none. The Nikkor is unpredictable in this regard and focus must be verified after stopping down and is guaranteed to be off after zooming. The focus seems remains on point after zooming both directions on the Sigma but I really haven't tested it enough to be 100% sure but on critical images I would verify anyway. The Nikkor always looses focus after zooming. To be fair I use strictly manual focus and the Nikkor it is designed to be use in autofocus NOT manual focus. The lens is noticably larger than the Nikkor and the build quality is excellent. The zoom and focus controls are very tight and solid and the lens is heavy. How you focus and where you focus is the key to this lens. I would highly recommend this lens. Bravo Sigma! Sent from my iPad

This is an excellent lens, especially for small indoor areas. Purchased for landscapes and real estate photos. Just be aware that it is a hefty (big and somewhat heavy) lens. I'm a 5'1 woman, so it takes getting used to holding a lens that heavy on my camera (Canon 6D). The first time I used it was on a trip to Texas and every single image was tack sharp, even though I handheld. I would have really liked to have had a wider aperture than f/4, for more lighting versatility and some blurred backgrounds in some instances, but my 6D is great in low light anyway, and I have other lenses I can use for bokeh. Plus the reviews I read were all overwhelmingly positive. I like that the lens hood is built in, and the cover completely encases the hood and lens when not in use. ... MoreThis is an excellent lens, especially for small indoor areas. Purchased for landscapes and real estate photos. Just be aware that it is a hefty (big and somewhat heavy) lens. I'm a 5'1 woman, so it takes getting used to holding a lens that heavy on my camera (Canon 6D). The first time I used it was on a trip to Texas and every single image was tack sharp, even though I handheld. I would have really liked to have had a wider aperture than f/4, for more lighting versatility and some blurred backgrounds in some instances, but my 6D is great in low light anyway, and I have other lenses I can use for bokeh. Plus the reviews I read were all overwhelmingly positive. I like that the lens hood is built in, and the cover completely encases the hood and lens when not in use. Hoping there will be a UV filter available soon for lens protection. Even though I'm careful with my lenses, I still like having protection against scratches, accidents, etc., especially for a $1600 piece of equipment. Overall, this lens is the way to go if you don't have the $$$ to spend on the Canon version. You won't be disappointed. I posted a couple of images below from my first use of the lens.

I have been using the generation one Sigma 12-24mm lens for wide landscapes and architectual shots for many years. The older lens was sharp in the center but soft at the edges and corners even when stopped down. The older lens was at its worst in the 12-15mm range, right where you needed it most. I am very impressed with the sharpness of the new Art version, especially at 12mm wide open. It is impressively sharp right to the edge of the frame and even deep into the corners. Not tack sharp like the center, but very very sharp for the edges of a super wide lens. If you own one of the older Sigma lenses and are thinking about upgrading, don't wait. The new lens is a huge improvement over the older versions in every respect, including build quality, and image quality. ... MoreI have been using the generation one Sigma 12-24mm lens for wide landscapes and architectual shots for many years. The older lens was sharp in the center but soft at the edges and corners even when stopped down. The older lens was at its worst in the 12-15mm range, right where you needed it most. I am very impressed with the sharpness of the new Art version, especially at 12mm wide open. It is impressively sharp right to the edge of the frame and even deep into the corners. Not tack sharp like the center, but very very sharp for the edges of a super wide lens. If you own one of the older Sigma lenses and are thinking about upgrading, don't wait. The new lens is a huge improvement over the older versions in every respect, including build quality, and image quality. If you consider cost as a downside to the new lens, consider the Canon 11-24mm lens. The Sigma is about half that price, so perhaps the Sigma is a bargan. In the DPREVIEW review of the Sigma Art lens they said at 12 mm it is very close to the Canon in terms of sharpness and beats the Canon in terms of vignetting, chromatic aberration (CA) and distortion. The DPREVIEW review of the Sigma lens was not as good in the 16-24mm end of the range. However, the images I have taken with the lens with my 5Ds look pretty darn good, at 24mm. At that focal length, the Sigma beats my Canon 24-105mm L lens in terms of sharpness. At 12 mm The Sigma is approaching my Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II lens in terms of sharpness. If you are familiar with that lens, you will know that is impressive. For my purposes, the Sigma is a winner, especially when you consider price. That is why I gave it a 5 star rating.