Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II vs. Sigma 35mm f1.4 - for concerts & weddings

I realize these lenses are different. In a perfect world I would have both. However, money talks - unfortunately. I shoot a handful of weddings each year, and have recently been getting into concert photography (as well as general portrait stuff, and race (running) coverage).

Currently, I have the Sigma 35mm f1.4, and it is awesome. Very please with it, even compared to the Canon L (as I know is the general consensus, especially for the money). I've tried both and prefer the Sigma. I also have the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (one that actually focuses correctly) and Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. I do have a Canon 24-105mm f4 IS, but I am trying to convince myself to shoot prime and at higher apertures more and more. I recently shot a complete wedding without it, with the other lenses in my lineup and with a rented Sigma 85mm f1.4 (which I intend to purchase in the coming year). I currently shoot with a 5D Mark II and a 1D Mark III (plan to upgrade to a 5D Mark III this year).

Anyway, enough with the boring story. I do have a need for pretty wide shots sometimes, especially with the concert and event coverage stuff. For a couple hundred more, I could swap out my Sigma 35mm for a used Canon 16-35mm II. I realize the difference in aperture. I typically use the Sigma at f1.8 and up, however, it is pretty usable for me below f1.8, if necessary. I did notice some difficulties with the Sigma while AI Servo tracking at this most recent wedding. I am assuming that is something that the Canon would excel at. Also, the ability to maneuver in that 16-35mm range would be handy. I could recover the need for shutter speed by bumping up the ISO if necessary. If I'm in a complete jam, I'm thinking I could swap out to the 50mm and just re-position myself, if possible.

Just wanted to get opinions from others. I'm good at rationalizing and talking myself into things

Thanks for your feedback. In response to your observation, I am a big guy It does get tiring sometimes, but I consider it a workout.

I probably didn't make this clear - the swap to the 16-35mm would hinge on me selling the 24-105mm; just so that's clear. I wouldn't have both.

jag64551 wrote:

Thanks for your feedback. In response to your observation, I am a big guy It does get tiring sometimes, but I consider it a workout.

I probably didn't make this clear - the swap to the 16-35mm would hinge on me selling the 24-105mm; just so that's clear. I wouldn't have both.

I'd say getting rid of the 24-105 and getting the 16-35 is a good idea.  Don't sell the Sigma though (assuming you like the focal length)

I shoot almost all primes and I do weddings and concerts as well!  I use the 24L II the Sigma 50 1.4 the Canon 85 1.8, 135L and the 200L II  My only zoom is the 17-40L which can be handy and the range of focal lengths is useful and fun for that type of photography.

For concerts, the 16-38 is probably a must. Depending on access to venues, and where you would be shooting from, you may end up very close to the stage. Are you a pro that is able to get press passes to, say, get some photos/access during the first 3 musics? If yes, then you will probably end up shooting upwards towards the band/artists; and then you need a wide angle zoom to get the mandatory shots: extra wide with all performers and idea of the set; normal to less wide to get a bit more detail on the main artist.

I appreciate all of the feedback. It's given me some ideas. In a realistic perfect world, I would have the 16-35, 35 and 85 (with the others I already have) - along with upgrading to the 5D III. Unfortunately, the money just isn't there for all that, so trying to make some decisions. I have a concert coming up next week, and I'm going to see if the 24-105 can cut it for wide shots, with boosting the ISO quite a bit.

My main question, through all of my long-winded-ness, is this: do you think I would realize a ton of loss if I used the 35mm end on the 16-35mm, for stuff that I would normally use the 35mm 1.4 for. Anyone else interested in commenting is welcome! But thank you for the feedback so far.

I don't shoot weddings or concerts so, maybe I'm missing something obvious but, wouldn't the Sigma 18-35 1.8 be a good alternative? Last I checked the reviews and opinions were that it was a fantastic lens that compared very well with primes throughout its range. With 18-35 you've got a great range, just a little narrower than the 16-35 but, with 1.8 instead of 2.8. At $799 new, the price is hard to complain about. Perhaps you wouldn't have to sell anything in order to get it?

To my knowledge, that is a crop-sensor lens and only usable at 35mm on a full-frame (5D). I've heard it is great though.

I knew I had to be missing something obvious! Now that I re-read your initial post, I see what I missed.

I got both Got the Canon about 2 years ago and the Sigma just recently. They are indeed very different and have a different purpose. If I were making $$ with photography I would for sure go for the 16-35. It is fast enough and very flexible for cool wide and somewhat closeup shots at the same time. I got the Sigma only for the f1.4 and the nice bokeh effect which is harder to achieve at f2.8.

If you cannot afford both at the same time - which is understandable - I'd get the Canon first and later the Sigma. Even though the Sigma is crazy good in every aspect but I wouldn't want to miss the flexibility and wide option.

I am doing this primarily to make $$ (a side job), so I oftentimes make more practical choices with my equipment - and that's what I'm trying to do here. I appreciate knowing that you own both. Thanks for the breakdown! It's a little more along the lines of what I have been thinking.

jag64551 wrote:

I realize these lenses are different. In a perfect world I would have both. However, money talks - unfortunately. I shoot a handful of weddings each year, and have recently been getting into concert photography (as well as general portrait stuff, and race (running) coverage).

I also wouldn't sell your Sigma 35/1.4.  It does have a number of uses.

Personally I'd rent a 16-35 a few times to see how you'll use it.  In my case, I decided not to swap my 17-40L for a 16-35L because I wouldn't shoot it wide open enough to justify the extra cost and the 16-35L isn't that good for the price --- it's just the best Canon currently offers.

A friend of mine tried two copies of the 16-35L and returned both in favor of a Tokina 16-28.

I am hoping to go with both. I found a really good deal on a used copy of the 16-35mm and am going to check it out on Friday. Selling my 24-105mm (right now, on Ebay, if anyone is interested ). My next show is in February. I'll update the post with how it went, with the two. Thank you for all of the input!

jag64551 wrote:

I am hoping to go with both. I found a really good deal on a used copy of the 16-35mm and am going to check it out on Friday. Selling my 24-105mm (right now, on Ebay, if anyone is interested ). My next show is in February. I'll update the post with how it went, with the two. Thank you for all of the input!

I bought mine used as well, and saved a bundle. They are often to be found in great shape. Maybe because they are a bit of a specialty lens.

Good luck! I love mine.