DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Canon 16-35 2.8 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8

Started Aug 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
victorian squid
victorian squid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,391
Re: Canon 16-35 2.8 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8

I think somebody here posted some thoughts on the Sigma. The lens is really on the new side so it's a little soon for folks to give feedback. I wish I could.

It's getting more than rave reviews: http://www.lenstip.com/374.1-Lens_review-Sigma_A_18-35_mm_f_1.8_DC_HSM_.html

If I was still on crop - this would certainly be one I'd pick up - over and above the 16-35. I have no doubt it's sharper and obviously it's faster. The 16-35 is well built, but hardly amazing. Optically it's a little better than the 17-40, and one stop faster.

I'm a lover of Sigma lenses - in fact I was just posting a slight disappointment that my new 24-105 isn't nearly as sharp as my Sigma lenses. They have upped their game and their recent lenses are really shaking things up.

The only reason I could think of for a 16-35 would be if you need a fast lens on a full frame, period. Oh, and some folks have to have a red ring! I picked up a 17-40 since I don't need f2.8 for a UWA, if I did I'd be looking at the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 instead.

 victorian squid's gear list:victorian squid's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L II USM Tamron SP 150-600mm F5-6.3 Di VC USD Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +37 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow