Originally posted by Docrwm
Thanks for the comparison. In your Flickr account the photos listed as 11mm are the 11-18 and those at 12mm are the 12-24. For some reason the EXIF doesn't name the lens in all the information listed.
The 12-24 seems to be holding up pretty darn well IMHO. (Especially at $1400 vs $700 new - and $400ish used for the 12-24).
You're welcome, and right about the lenses. I don't know why the exif doesn't show all the information.
---------- Post added 03-19-19 at 02:05 PM ----------
Originally posted by hypermodern
I’ll second that thanks.
And I agree, apart from the chromatic aberration, the 12-24 still looks mighty good.
You're welcome, and yes, the oldie looks better than I thought.
---------- Post added 03-19-19 at 02:09 PM ----------
Originally posted by Madaboutpix
Sure appreciated, those sample shots, Marcos.
Agree with Robert and hypermodern: the real surprise, if surprising at all, is not so much that the new lens performs with its price tag, but how well the 12-24 holds its ground even in 2019. Actually, I wouldn't have minded at all if they had kept it in the line-up as an F4 alternative. Or had even mark-II-ed it with newer (SP and HD) coatings, following the example of the refreshed HD FA35, or the HD DA Limiteds.
You're welcome.
I agree with you, I would love those sunstars but with better flare resistance.
---------- Post added 03-19-19 at 02:10 PM ----------
Originally posted by clickclick
The 12 does look good.
I'm always surprised how just 1mm can make such a difference in the FOV. Any chance you have a Sigma 10-20 you could throw into the mix?
Sorry, those are my only ultrawides.