[wim]

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291612148' post='4783']

Wim, I see you're really bitter about your bad experience with the 12-24 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Actually, most people seem to say that it is a bad lens... but I've seen sample shots and tests by people that suggests there are some good samples out there (especially in regard to CA)... however rare they may be:



[url="http://pikespeakphoto.com/tests/sigmalens12-24.htm"]http://pikespeakphot...malens12-24.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/sigma_12-24_review.htm"]http://www.juzaphoto...2-24_review.htm[/url]



There was a similar claim on 16-9.net about the original 24L.



GTW

[/quote]

Geno,



Even in Juza's winter landscape shot you can see the blurred details in the corners, even at this small magnification. Look at the crystals in the granite boulders - they are smeared, even if maybe not as bad as with the lens specimens I experienced <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



BTW, the original 24L was declared the #1 lens in its class at 16-9.net originally <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim