New Workshop! Lighting 3 | Advanced Off Camera Flash

Gear & Apps

Lens Review | Sigma 12-24 F/4 Art

By Ryan Longnecker on January 14th 2017

So lets get this on the table right away; it’s a great lens.

It might be super-huge, maybe a little too wide, and a bummer if you use filters, but the Sigma 12-24mm f/4 ART still a great lens. I’ve had the same gear for most of my work for about 2 years now but am always curious what 2 years of innovation could produce in a lens. Having a lens that is actually about 6 years newer than my go-to was exciting, but I still need/needed to be impressed if it means taking the leap for an upgrade.

From a landscape photographer’s perspective I look for a few things in any lens I use: Sharpness all around, vignetting, CA (chromatic aberration), distortion, low light performance, weather sealing, and practicality. The ‘practicality’ piece of it is honestly saved for the end because if the rest of it is great I can deal with some inconvenience along the way. These are all real world tests and nothing was done with a tripod or actual measurements so if you’re looking for a controlled environment and math, I’m just not that kind of guy… I need to see how it feels in my hand and how it shoots in places/times I’d actually shoot. So lets talk about these.



The sharpness seemed to keep up pretty well with my Canon 17-40, which is also an F4. As I zoomed in to 24 things seemed to get a little less impressive all around especially near the corners. Wide open it was really nice to see it hold up at F4 and 12mm. For a lens this wide I would assume a lot of its use would be at it’s widest and wide open as well.

[Recommended: Sigma 14mm F/1.8 Art Lens Review]

I also know that a better side by side would have been the Canon 11-24 but rather than focus too much time on a comparison I’ll just move forward looking at the lens as is.



This actually had me very surprised. I had never really had complaints with my lens and it’s vignetting… that is until I used this Sigma lens. This one was surprisingly consistent at F4. For sunrise and sunset shots when I’m shooting wide open this would be a huge benefit for foreground details and sky color.

Chromatic Aberration


Slight, nothing too distracting or impressive.



Maybe it’s just that my setup hasn’t given me any issue in this regard, but I really notice barrel distortion on images. I really try to get away from anything fisheye looking and this lens definitely had a little of that going on. Not too surprising from a 12mm focal distance but still would deter me from using it if I cared about the horizon.

Low Light Performance

I tested this against my Rokinon 14mm that I bought specifically for low light situations and I was really impressed. If this lens was an F/2.8 I think it would be a really amazing astrophotography lens, but at F/4 it’s just not pulling enough light for me to use it over my Rokinon. It is plenty sharp, doesn’t have a lot of corner warp issues or coma (where stars at the edges of the frame look elongated rather than pin point sharp). Again, nothing really to complain about, besides being F/4 I think it did great at night.

Weather Sealing

Now doing a lens test I wasn’t able to get into situations of extreme cold or rain or snow like I would eventually get into with my other gear over time, but I can tell you it looks sturdy. I know it doesn’t have the full weather sealing of it’s Canon competitor and for a landscape photographer, depending on how often you are in the elements, that could be a real issue. I’ve never had to deal with Sigma’s customer service regarding a lens fix or issue, so I can’t say how they would handle it if there was a problem due to weather.



This is where I look a little subjectively at the lens from my point of view. Every time I can limit how much weight and size I can, I do, and this this is a beast. The front glass element is massive and there is a built in filter hood which, shooting with a circular polarizer a LOT now, that would be an issue. I would then need to carry my Lee Filters with me and use that setup and I’m usually on the go and never in one place for too long. Don’t get me wrong, the technical elements of this lens were pretty great (minus the barrel distortion), but I was left feeling kind of – meh – about it. Not meh from a standalone standpoint, this would be an insanely great lens if you are looking for a wide landscape or close up sports lens (I’m thinking skateboarding/snowboarding), but from a need to upgrade standpoint I wasn’t pushed over that edge.

Little side note(s): the construction is really great, the zoom function felt a little too snug, but someone else might equally call that very secure. The minimum focusing distance was also great and the AF feature locked in the infinity focus very sharp which is great for getting that quick moment of sunrise or sunset that might not be there moments later.


It really does stand up to Sigma’s reputation of making incredible and innovative products at more than reasonable prices. The sharpness and low light capabilities make this a fairly good all around wide landscape lens. I could see it for being used in water housings and getting some wide angle water sports as well. I liked it’s bokeh and sun flare look too. If I didn’t have a wide landscape lens and needed to look between this and the Canon that price difference may be worth the weather sealing and distortion elements to some.

I’m always excited to see what Sigma puts out because they are keeping the world of lens innovation moving forward and am excited to see what they come out with next. I vote for a full frame compatible version of their rad 18-35 F/1.8. Sigma? You out there? Hit me up if you make one.

You can get the Sigma 12-244mm F/4 ART here.

Other Sigma Reviews:


This site contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links, however, this does not impact accuracy or integrity of our content.

I grew up in the Eastern Sierras and since I was a kid I loved being outdoors and art. I went to school for music and theology and think both of those weave their way into my photography. I have a passion to change people from being cynical about people and this planet to being hopeful and seeing the beauty in it. I have a wife and two daughters and they could care less how successful I am at taking pictures, and that’s great, because it’s a constant anchor to what is best.

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Gary Hook

    Tried it out (briefly) at Imaging USA, and also the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. The Tamron won, hands down. I would not own this lens.

    | |
    • Trevor Coultart

      Big difference between 12mm and 15mm when shooting small interior spaces. To me this is a (slightly) more affordable alternative to Canon’s 11-24.

      | |
    • adam sanford

      +1 To Trevor. Gary, you are comparing apples and oranges. Whereas the 15-30 VC is head to head against the 16-35 CaNikon offerings, I don’t think the 12-24 is.

      Let’s call it what it is: the Sigma is a 12mm prime masquerading as a zoom. The 12mm FOV is light years different than the 15 or 16mm FOV of your standard UWA zoom.

      Sure, the Sigma shoots up to 24mm, *but that’s not why people buy it.* Same goes for Canon’s ’11mm prime’. :-)

      | |
    • Ryan Longnecker

      thanks for the input!

      | |
  2. Trevor Coultart

    I currently use Sigma’s more basic 12-24 for real estate, and had assumed I would one day upgrade to the Canon 11-24 f4. This new Sigma looks perfect for me. A more affordable option than the Canon and looks to be a great improvement on my current lens. Might be this year’s business investment.

    | |
  3. Mateusz Antonowicz

    Hi there, you said the lens focuses very close. How close is very close?, from front element, not from sensor.

    | |
    • Ryan Longnecker

      from the front element I focused on some snow that was maybe 6-8″ away. Felt even closer because of how wide it was

      | |
  4. Paul Fan

    {You can get the Sigma 12-244mm F/4 ART here.} 244mm?????

    | |
  5. adam sanford

    Also, for what is ostensibly a landscape lens (and some astro, some interiors work, etc.) not being able to conveniently front filter it is DOA for me.

    Even at ultrawide FLs, a CPL can be vital for managing reflections, and ND / ND grads are a hot mess with this one. This lens and the Canon 11-24 require outriggers and filters the size of dinner plates that are hard to come by, limited in options, and comically expensive.

    And calling this lens about as sharp as the 17-40L is a compliment… in 2003. UWA zooms are far sharper than that these days.

    | |
    • Ryan Longnecker

      totally. not being able to use filters is a killer for me on landscapes. And saying it’s as sharp as my 17-40 is a compliment now, in 2017, because my 17-40 is consistently sharp and I’ve not needed an upgrade. It was from my experience, not saying every version is that sharp

      | |
  6. adam sanford

    Lovely shots, thanks for sharing.

    Much like the Canon 11-24, with the Sigma…

    1) Can’t front filter it (without a nasty outrigger setup)

    2) No IS

    3) f/4 max aperture

    It’s basically a lead pipe for people with ultra-ultra-ultrawide sickness.

    | | Edited