Re: Sigma 16mm f/1.4 or just keep the Canon 22mm f/2
1
Larry Rexley wrote:
Icagel wrote:
In my eyes those two lenses are very different. I was thinking about 16mm, but 16mm is not wide enough and 22 is more versatile focus length for portraits than 16mm. If I would consider to change 22 f2 than I would take Viltrox 23 f1.4. It is not as sharp as sigma, but it has his own look and very versatile as 22mm.
I find the 22mm focal length to be a very useful 'sweet spot', and really would love a good 22mm f1.4. I have read many reviews of the Viltrox 23mm f1.4 and based on those I do not think it would be any better than the Canon 22mm f2 lens for my purposes. I use the Siggy 16mm f1.4 as I have no other close options, but would prefer something a little less wide for all around-night shooting.
My favorite options on canon crop would be 9 (laowa) to 13mm (viltrox but not for efm), 22-23mm, 50-56mm and 300+mm. I do not see much usage of 16mm and 32mm (I have). On FF I would take 16mm, 35 and 85mm primes and some telephoto.
Makes sense to me too. Of all my lenses I use the Canon 32mm f1.4 the least, even though it is optically the best lens on the mount!
Have a look at the Samyang/ Rokinon 21mm f/1.4 - expensive, sharp, lovely colours, low distortion (+10 or less barrel distortion in DxO PhotoLab), bigger and better sister to the 12mm f/2. It's better for astro than the RF 35mm lens, and about the same size with the hood reversed on it. The UK distributor discontinued it years ago (I think it was too expensive for the UK market) but it's still shown on the Samyang website.