For an ultra wide zoom going from 12-24 I suppose its decent. It's pretty soft obviously... Looking at your shots it appears that F11 is significantly softer than F16, which is unacceptable IMO. The trees and foliage quickly become green mats rather than delineated leaves and twigs. Having to shoot at F16 to get fairly sharp pictures is not worth the price of this lens IMO. The 16-45 is cheaper and has a much more useful range. I thought this would be a nice focal length, but is clearly too difficult to produce to be of use to most people.
-That Guy -----Original Message----- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Sigma 12-24 i've taken a few pictures now with my Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 lens in Pentax mount and so far it seems to be a better one that the Sigma 15-30 i used to have. sharpness is better and there isn't any significant chromatic abberation. here is a selection of shots taken with it. these are lowest compression conversions from RAW as done by Photo Laboratory and average about 4 megabytes/shot. i made an exposure adjustment to one of the images, but otherwise are as shot with all default conversion options. flare is not good, but at least it's predictable when it will happen. unlike the Sigma 15-30, there is no chance of using any filter on the front lens cover ring. it vignettes noticeably until zoomed to at least the 20mm mark with just the ring attached. not being able to use a filter is limiting, but not as limiting as it could be. http://users.bestweb.net/~hchong/Seasonal/ as an aside, every time i use Pentax Photo Browser and Photo Laboratory, i tell myself never again. however, it's the only program that knows how to read the lens information from the EXIF. Herb....
