herbko 0 Posted November 10, 2003 I found the big telephone book size BH catalog in my mail box yesturday. The Sigma 12-24mm is listed there for $649. I juct check their website and it's not there yet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kdietz 0 Posted November 12, 2003 Will this lens work on your Rebel? Karl Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
herbko 0 Posted November 12, 2003 They will sell versions in Canon, Nikon, Minota, and Sigma mounts. It'll work. However, I've not decided if that's what I want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james 0 Posted November 12, 2003 Having used the 12-24DX lens for F-mount: If I was buying a wideangle lens for my DSLR today, I'd have to choose between the Sigma (~$650) and the Nikkor (~$1,000). I'd probably pay the extra $350 for the Nikkor. But having to make this choice for a Canon mount is not a choice at all, because there is only the Sigma brand WA zoom. I would highly recommend the 12-24 zoom lens, of either type. I know Herb is partial to the 130 degree view provided by the Inon+Dome (on his 5050) however, that is a fisheye lens, not a rectilinear lens. The 12-24 has very little barrel distortion, so is better underwater but has the added bonus that it takes wonderful topsides landscape photos too. Cheers James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
herbko 0 Posted November 12, 2003 Actually, I'm leaning towards a 15mm fisheye. The distortion is usually not noticeable in underwater shots, and even when it is there seem to be a wide acceptace of it. I guess underwater photo aficionados have gotten so use to seeing it, it's become normal. The advantages of the fisheye are wider coverage and closer minimum focus distance. I think that out weights the distortion problem for underwater use. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james 0 Posted November 12, 2003 Herb, I completely agree RE the fisheye. I used a 16mm fisheye for UW shooting and I couldn't tell the difference. It's just not as versatile for topsides use. Cheers James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbo1946 0 Posted November 12, 2003 The 12-24 has very little barrel distortion, so is better underwater but has the added bonus that it takes wonderful topsides landscape photos too. The 12-24mm lens is, as James says, a superb topside lens for landscapes. That was definitely a factor for me. It goes in the camera bag for just any kind of trip we make now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mondo 1 Posted November 13, 2003 I picked my DX-Nikkor 12-24mm lens up yesterday. It is a very nice lens, and seems to perform superbly in my limited topside tests so far I really will look forward to get this one underwater! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
abowie 0 Posted November 16, 2003 Hi Des (not Neil; hallucinating from too little diving). Where did you get your Aquatica from and what are your impressions? email me privately at abowie@internode.on.net if you wish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndreSmith 15 Posted November 16, 2003 Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I was wondering how one would get the Sigma 12-24mm to work in a dome. As the the closest focussing distance is only 28cm, surely you would need a diopter? As the lens uses a rear gelatin filter insert, how can you do this? Or does the lens still have front threads for this purpose?? BTW - here are the lens specs: Construction 12 groups /16 elements Angle of view 122.0°-84.1° F stop range F22 / F4.5-5.6 Closest Focusing Distance 11 in. (28cm) Maximum Magnification 1:7.1 Filter Size Rear Type (gelatin filter insert) Dimensions (Length x Diameter) 3.42 in. (dia) x 3.94 in. (length) / 87mm (dia) x 100mm (length) Weight 21.6 oz. (615g) Notes Fixed Type Petal Hood Focusing System : Inner Focus Thanks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cybergoldfish 1 Posted November 16, 2003 Actually, I'm leaning towards a 15mm fisheye. The distortion is usually not noticeable in underwater shots, and even when it is there seem to be a wide acceptace of it. I guess underwater photo aficionados have gotten so use to seeing it, it's become normal. The advantages of the fisheye are wider coverage and closer minimum focus distance. I think that out weights the distortion problem for underwater use. Depends whether you want all your whalesharks etc looking deformed or not, and you will be stuck for the whole dive on a limited amount of subject matter. Regarding quality difference between the Nikon & Sigma lenses - There is none, so don't kid yourselves that there is! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craig 0 Posted November 16, 2003 While I agree that you will be stuck with the superwide lens for the whole dive, don't worry about the barrel distortion. Most of the time you can't tell it's there. When it is a problem, you simply use Panotools (or similar, I use ImageAlign) to quickly and easily remove it. The result is a slight reduction in resolution around the edges (that you won't easily detect) and a wider-than 3:2 aspect ratio. I have a formula for removing curvature with my setup but very rarely use it. The Sigma is not the same lens as the Nikon, as Herb pointed out, so don't assume anything about their performance. Maybe better or maybe worse (or not). Unlike the Nikon, the Sigma lacks a front thread for diopters and is larger in diameter than some housings will accept. Still should be interesting, especially for Canon shooters. The Nikon also lacks close focus and I prefer its performance without a diopter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
herbko 0 Posted November 16, 2003 Depends whether you want all your whalesharks etc looking deformed or not, and you will be stuck for the whole dive on a limited amount of subject matter. These don't look too bad to me. http://www.echeng.com/travel/ecuador/skydancer/0821darwin/ I think Eric used a 15mm fisheye. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdickson 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I was wondering how one would get the Sigma 12-24mm to work in a dome. As the the closest focussing distance is only 28cm, surely you would need a diopter? The minimum focus distance of a dome port is equal to twice the diameter of the dome. So, an 8 inch dome has a minimum focus distance of 16 inches. The 12-24 will focus ok in an 8 inch port without a diopter. If the minimum focus distance of the lens is 11 inches, then it should be ok in a 6 inch dome too. Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bdickson 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Does anyone know if Aquatica have/will have a zoom gear for the Sigma 12/24. Is it by any chance the same diameter as the Nikon 12-24? Bruce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yahsemtough 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Craig can you clarify what you mean't about mentioning the Canon lenses in you last post? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
james 0 Posted November 17, 2003 [Disclaimer - I am not Craig and I do not play him on TV] The widest you can go w/ a Canon DSLR at the moment is 15mm fisheye with the 1.6 crop factor. The widest rectilinear lens is the 14mm Sigma w/ the 1.6 crop factor. I'm not counting the 8mm fisheye... So a 12-24 lens is the "only" wide angle zoom alternative that is a "really wide" rectilinear lens (12mm w/ a 1.6 FOV crop) for Canon users. Nikon users already have a 12-24 alternate so the Sigma lens is a "cost control" decision, not the ONLY available decision. Cheers James Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yahsemtough 0 Posted November 17, 2003 Merci, now I understand. Now if I could decide which camp to commit to. Christ this is more stressful than my first divorce and that was hell. LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
