Pro/Cons for Sigma 12-24 II & Canon 16-35 II

I'm looking for a wide angle zoom and I narrowed my search to these two lenses. I intend to use them on a full frame (5d3) mostly for landscapes but some architecture as well.

The main criterion of selection is sharpness. A prime would do a better job but, as an amateur I can’t justify the price of a good prime, plus the zoom is handy.

Distortions are also important, but I don’t mind PP. As long as distortions can be corrected I can live with them. 12mm sounds very tempting but once corrected for distortions how close does it get to 16mm?

The aperture doesn't really matter as they will be mainly used at F8 or slower. Also, I don’t intend to use either lens at 24mm or more as I have better glass for that.

Being able to use filters and weather protection are a plus to Canon.

Photozone doesn't praise much 16-35 II in their review (actually about as much as 12-24 II). The-digital-picture doesn't have Sigma mk2 in their IQ charts to compare it with Canon.

What are your opinions? I hardly expect anyone to own both but do you think Sigma is sharp enough? Do you have to crop to compensate for distortions? Is Canon just ok or is it top class L glass as the name (and the price) suggests? Is it a no brainer to buy this third-party lens when Canon has the best? Or am I throwing money at Canon when there’s a much wider zoom out there with similar IQ?

Cheers!

You should head over to lensrentals.com and read Roger Cicala's take on these lenses. Comments are located at the bottom of the lens description on the rental pages.

vvv14 wrote:

I'm looking for a wide angle zoom and I narrowed my search to these two lenses. I intend to use them on a full frame (5d3) mostly for landscapes but some architecture as well.

The main criterion of selection is sharpness. A prime would do a better job but, as an amateur I can’t justify the price of a good prime, plus the zoom is handy.

Actually, there is one prime that might fit your bill by being both inexpensive and having impeccable image quality (except one feature that can be post-corrected).

The too-good-to-be-true Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 E AS IF UMC has been my and many others' wide angle choice since they re-engineered the glass (the old version didn't have UMC it its name and it was a much worse lens). The lens costs less than 350€ in Europe, so it is by any definition a dirt-cheap piece of glass. It is also sold by many other brand names, but I don't know if they are the non-UMC or the UMC version.

When Canon's 14/2.8L II costs over seven times that much, you wouldn't think you could get anything usaful for 350€, but the Samyang is one wonderful piece of glass. The lens is mechanically sound and the focus ring has the MF era feel that is smoother and better than on any L lens I've used. 14 mm is wiiide, and usable even with fully open f/2.8 aperture.

Sounds too good to be true? Well, don't believe me. Have a look at what PhotoZone and LensTip say.

My Pros:

• Sharp. Bitingly sharp. And did I say it was sharp?
  
• Mechanically sound.
• Good flare resistance.
• Nice saturated colours. At least part of it comes from the good flare resistance.
  
• Surprisingly good bokeh if you shoot nearby subjects with fully open aperture. Of course bokeh isn't the reason to buy a super wide, but it doesn't hurt either, does it?
  
• A joy to use.
• No chromatic aberration. None. Zero.
  

My Cons (there always has to be some...):

• The lens is fully manual. You focus yourself, you set aperture yourself. However, with a 14 mm lens and its native depth of field, manually focusing really is easy.
• The lens has complex moustache distortion, and a lot of it. Not often problematic with nature, but worse with architecture. This can of course be corrected with software. And, actually, because it is moustache distortion (edges less distorted than areas closer to the center), minimal amounts of focal length is lost when correcting for it. As everything in lens design is a compromise, my guess is that the engineers designing the Samyang decided to let the lens have lots of distortion to get both sharpness and good chromatic aberration. In my opinion that was a great compromise.
  
• The distance scale is way off on many copies. If you cannot select your copy, this is something you just have to live with. So learn that e.g. 3 meters actually means infinity. I'm not too happy about this, but I'd rather take this fault than bad IQ.

So, there you are. I know I didn't directly answer the question you made, but thought you might still be interested.

I'll end this message with two, no, make it three quotes.

PhotoZone: Well, we were stunned by the results in this category and I reckon you will join us once you've had a look at the charts below. The Samyang produced nothing short of outstanding resolution figures for a lens in this class. [...] I reckon that you will not believe us so please have a look at our field image section.

LensTip: Honestly, I’ve never expected I might sing the praises of a low-end lens produced in Korea. As you see, though, an excellent image quality is not just a privilege of expensive devices produced in Japan or Germany.

LensTop: It’s enough to say that it definitely surpasses in image sharpness the expensive, professional Nikkor 14-24 mm f/2.8 set at 14 mm and also it corrects most of optical aberrations better than that lens.

Kind regards,
- Henrik

I have the first version of the 12-24sigma and LOVE it - version 2 is meant to be better, i highly recommend the extra 4mm, it's a HUGE difference. I shoot 95% of my realestate and architectural shots on this lens.

thats assuming you don't need F2.8 and don't plan on using it to shoot events (where the 35mm end might be useful)

there isn't much distortion on my 12-24 but i know the new one has alittle bit more - the 16-35L has more i think, you won't lose much correcting it

The Samyang has alot of distortion, but i am considering it just for weddings, wish it was half the size for that though...

So i say go the Sigma

The Mk II Sigma is a bit sharper and contrastier, most noticeably in the corners/at the edges but at the expense of much more distortion.

I have the old Sigma 12-24 and to me it is bizarre to rule out the 17-40L on IQ grounds and then consider the Sigma which is demonstrably worse (Its principal and possibly only redeeming faeture in comparison with the Canon is it's really extreme field of view).

There are plenty of landscape professionals using the 17-40L (and the 24-105L for that matter). If you've dismissed primes on grounds of your inexperience I dont think the 17-40L stopped down holds anything to fear even if the 16-35II is modestly better in the extreme corners at f11.

vvv14 wrote:

Hi Henrick,

I am aware of Samyang’s 14mm and I read extensively about it. I agree that it’s rare example of a brilliant lens when you consider the price/quality. I didn’t go for it because of my limitations rather those of the lens. I’m not always great at framing, so beside cropping, being able to zoom is a help.

Fair enough. If you definitely want a zoom, then a prime - even an excellent one - just won't cut it.

Kind regards,
- Henrik

I had a good 17-40mm lens ..... but the Sigma 12-42mm II lens is a fantastic lens! A lot better that any 17-40mm lenses I have had (4 of them). Even the version 1 12-24mm lens is better Lately after getting a 17mm TS-E lens, I considered the 16-35mm II lens. I found that normally it is good until 19-21mm & nothing told me it was really better in any way that my 17 TS-E lens or even my previous Sigma 12-24mm II lens. The 16-35mm is fasterm but from what I saw from my 12-24mm II lens, it's not that much better. .....I have tried 5 times to insert a sample & it won't work ..... I do this all the time Will try & rely with a sample ....oney & quality wise, you can't go wrong with the Sigma 12-24mm II lens

..... Still can't insert an image   I DO THIS ALL THE TIME  .... DP is lacking in this area lately

Cheers

Had 4 17-40mm L lenses & the Sigma 12-24mm I & II ..... the version 2 is better in every way except distortion is only slightly worse.  The 17-40mm L is not that great!!!  I now have the 17mm TS-E lens & if I were to replace it .... it would be the Sigma 12-24mm II lens!

Cheers

Here is the sample I tried earlier ....