Rick Lee wrote: > Did you try any shots with a significant light source in the frame? I > tried a Sigma lens and a Tamron lens a while back, but found the flare > problems to be really unacceptable compared to Nikon lenses so I gave up on > the off-brand lenses.
I didn't test much for flare, but it was better than I expected, which is to say that with the sun out of the frame, I didn't have any problem; with sun in frame, it varied from fine to problematic depending on where. Here's a link to someone's more extensive evaluation of this lens: http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/pdf/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigm a_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.pdf And some side-by-sides with the Canon 16-35L and 17-40L: http://homepage.mac.com/ndjedinak/.Pictures/Photography/Columbus/widetest.jp g Finally, I'd note that generalizations about Nikon vs. "off-brand" lenses from major makers like Sigma and Tamron are (generally) not useful. Check out the lens test guide at www.photozone.de, which is a compilation of lens tests by various magazines. What's shown there reflects my own experience and that of others who've tried direct comparisons: both camera manufacturer and third party lenses range from cheaply made and optically dreadful to absolutely first rate. In the 100-300 zoom range, for instance, the Sigmas clearly outscored the Zeiss, Canon, and Nikkor optics. I would always look to tests of specific lenses rather than generalizations about manufacturer. The 12-24 was the first defective (misaligned elements) lens I've ever bought. Taken with the sometimes wildly-differing reports of this lens' sharpness on discussion forums, there's some indication they may have quality control problems with this lens. I'd definitely recommend testing it before use (we all do that anyway, right?) Russell Williams =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
