Whether one feels something as good or bad, often comes from where you come from. In format APS-C I had a Pentax K5, to a Sigma 10-20mm and later the Sigma 8-16mm, which I felt as well. To reduce weight, I bought a Samsung NX300 and now to the 12-24mm. To be fair, in front: 8mm and 12mm compare is unfair. So I compared the focal lengths 12,13,14 and 15mm of Samsung and Sigma. Said very quickly: the 12-24mm is clearly superior in terms of sharpness, color edges and illumination, the best wide-angle, which I had in 35 years. Backlit subjects in the full sun with no reflections and then this wonderful compactness with 58mm filters. In the jpgs the distortion is very well corrected. It is encouraging that in the raw (possibly depending on the software), the distortion remains uncorrected, thereby there for landscapes appreciably wider angle (the jpgs create only the angle of view of 13mm focal length). At the long end of the focal length brilliance leaves something to, of course, because I do not buy a 12-24mm because of the 20 or 24mm which can Kitobjektiv 16-50mm better anyway. But for clean architectures (with JPG) or dynamic landscapes (with raw) is the 12-24mm a treat. The story goes, it will be replaced by a more expensive, larger, heavier Zoom. I'm glad to have got "amateur version" this old, this is the go advantageous. To be honest, I had the first example of a major Brazilian consignor back, off center, the second copy of sawyers bar was good, may be a coincidence.
