20mm Test (4 Lenses) Photo Gallery by lightrules at pbase.com

20mm Test (4 Lenses)

Feb 28 2005: Tested here at 20mm and f5.6/f11 are the following lenses:

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM [$600] aka, "Popeye"
Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC [$400]
Sigma 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC [$250]
Sigma 20mm F1.8 EX DG RF [$300] aka, "Bargain Bucket/El Hombre"

These 4 lenses are GOOD copies and I believe are REPRESENTATIVE of what can be EXPECTED from each lens. EACH of these lenses focus accurately and have NO problems with my 20D. Feel free to email me if you have questions or comments, and I hope this test is somewhat helpful to you.

As of note, "El Hombre" scorches; no surprise.

[41,500 page hits]

4 Lenses Lined-Up

4 Lenses Lined-Up [extended]

MainTest

Full Image [resized]

comment |

lightrules		23-Sep-2005 17:43
The prime is a bit sharper than the zoom at f2.8, but that is to be expected. The zoom is very good though even wide open.

kashi		23-Sep-2005 08:01
hi, thanks for this useful info. i am really confused between the sigma20mm f1.8 + nikon 50mm f1.8 and the sigma 18-50 f2.8. could you tell me how the how the two sigmas compare at f2.8? thanks kashi

lightrules		18-May-2005 13:40
Hi Mats, the 18-125 works fine and while I'm not sure if it's the camera or lens more (probably the lens), it's a very good little lens and renders nice images most of the time. You just have to learn how to use it and it can deliver the goods. As for the 18-50, it's a very (very) good lens. Enjoy buddy.

Mats N.		18-May-2005 09:19
Hi fstopjojo! Nice job, especially since I'm considering a purchase of a 18-50/2,8 EX... Regarding the "issue" that the 18-125 needs refocusing before firing-off: Is that a lens which works perfectly fine in your view? I'd call that a faulty lens (OR it might be a camera caused fault) and not something to make me praise a lens...regardless if the glass itself is sharp as a tack or just "good". Are you sure it's not a faluty AF-system on the 20D? Does it only show up at the longest f-length, and only on the 18-125? Me, I've experienced about the same thing (having to re-focus) on both my old Nikon F801 film camera, and on my EOS 600 film camera and my EOS 300D - sometimes focus just don't lock on as it should, and it happens not only in bad light.Seems AF-systems are yet not perfected...(?) (Happens/happened at all f-lengths and with most lenses I use/used)

lightrules		13-May-2005 16:34
Thanks for the comments, Acidic. Good to hear you were able to try them out for yourself. The Sigma's build is very good as is its HSM; it is also a boon that it works with FF and is the only real option for those with FF cameras. The Tokina 12-24 looks promising, as does the new Sigma 10-20. The Tamron 11-18 just doesn't seem very interesting at all with its odd focal range, high price, and assumingly typical Tamron build. The others are the way to go.

acidic		13-May-2005 09:17
I have an excellent copy of the 12-24, and I just got a Canon 10-22 to replace it. At f/22, the Sigma wins in the center and corners. At f/8 and wider, the Canon wins. f/11-16, they are pretty similar all around. Size and weight categories definitely go to Canon, but EF-S mount is a problem for 1D/Ds and film shooters.

lightrules		04-Mar-2005 21:44
The 18-50 at f2.8 is more than useable; it is very good in fact. You can see some shots at my other section called "Zoom v. Primes" and also http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/1850

oluv		04-Mar-2005 21:33
i would like to see the 18-50 wide open! how does it perform at 2.8? is it usable?

Jeff		01-Mar-2005 22:39
As an owner of the 12-24, that looks about right. However, the 12-24 feels quite a bit sharper at the 12mm end than the 24mm. It's a fun lens, not to mention fat and mean looking. I expected more from the 18-50. I'd really like to see it compared to the 24-70 or the 28-70 (but not the 24-60). Both of those lenses are generally highly regarded and compare favorably to the Tamron 28-75. I was hoping the 18-50 would be the 1.6 crop equivalent.

lightrules		01-Mar-2005 16:43
I don't know that I can say which lens is "best" only because they are in many ways different kinds of lenses. But in a nutshell, each performs AS I WOULD EXPECT. That is, the 20mm prime is sharpest overall. The standard zooms (18-50, 18-125) do well, especially the 18-50, which is a "class" above the 18-125, as expected (since it is an EX/Pro series lens). The 18-50 is very sharp and has nice colors and contrast, though the edge performance could be better. But the 18-125 is great for the money, has excellent focal range, and delivers nice images that you'd be hard-pressed to see much difference when printed out to 12x18. Once stopped down, they all become very good. The super wide (12-24) does as expected too; it has nice colors and contrast. All in all, nothing surprising, all do as they SHOULD relative to one another, and I think each has its merits worth considering for purchase.

Ira Graham III		01-Mar-2005 14:23
so what lens was best. what are your thoughts about your lens test?

click on thumbnails for full image