Canon's new 16-35 f/4 versus Sigma's new 18-35 f/1.8

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Muresan Bogdan
Regular MemberPosts: 257
Like?
Re: Canon's new 16-35 f/4 versus Sigma's new 18-35 f/1.8
In reply to TigTillinghast, 3 months ago

You can use the image comparison tool on the digital picture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=949&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=854&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=3

Just keep in mind that the Canon is tested on a full frame camera. So you must compare the Canon mid frame picture with the Sigma corners.

I see two big advantages for the Canon:

- if you are a landscape shooter or even for indoor on an APS-C camera 18mm is not really that wide. The difference between 16 and 18mm would be enough for most lanscape photographers to consider the Canon over the Sigma

-if you shoot portraits you will never shoot them at 16 or 18mm. You will use the long end of the lens. And while Sigma does have a fast aperture that may be suited for portraits, it is rather soft at the 35mm end. Even at f4 the Sigma is still softer than the Canon. Also if you want a portrait lens you would be better off with a cheap 50mm f1.8 than any of these lenses.

Also the 16-35mm is an L lens and will keep it's price rather well. Or if you switch to full frame you can still use it. The Sigma does none. Overall the Canon seems like a better investment. As I said maybe paired with a cheap 50mm or 35mm fast prime.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow