Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 vs Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 w/Metabones Speedbooster EF to M43?

[dslr4unboxingvids]

Which is a better value?

Sigma 18-35mm is $725 if used, and Metabones is $649 from what I see (Canon ef version).

About $1400 vs $1000 for 12-35mm Panasonic. The lens will be used with my GH4.

I know the Sigma has a better/larger focus ring, and somewhat better build quality, but is it worth the price difference?

After borrowing my friends Sigma + Metabones (he has the Nikon version though), it is nice, but not sure if it's worth the extra cost.

One advantage I see with the Sigma and metabones option, is since I'd have the speedbooster I have a bit more flexibility in the future should I decide to get a different canon lens, but still no image stabilization with the Sigma 18-35mm.

It's a tough call.

The most important thing to me is video quality, as I am coming from a T2i and 70D (had the 70D for a week before returning it).

Thanks to anyone who replies, I appreciate it .

 

[Steve_]

Let's see, do I drive a customized farm combine with a transplanted jet engine from a Boeing airliner or a Porsche 911? I hear the combine has a definite power advantage, and isn't that much more unwieldy in parking lot maneuvers..

 

[LearningForeverIHope]

Iam at the hospital tight now and maybe it is just that context but your metaphor made me laugh deliciously. Thanks for that.

 

[Hithertoo]

What exactly are your intentions? Shooting video I guess, perhaps not concerned with auto focus speed. Let me just say that while it might be close at 18mm, effective 25mm, it's not even in the same ballpark across the zoom range between the two lenses. The Panasonic 12-35mm is much sharper. In terms of light gather you have a lens that behaves like an F/2.5 lens, so you don't even really gain much in terms of light gather.

Overall, this is not a good proposition unless your number 1 main focus priority is shooting video and for the majority at 25mm where the sharpness across the frame might be close to similar, but when you start zooming the Panasonic 12-35 will remain sharper.

The GH4 will blow the 70D out of the water in terms of image quality and video quality, not only is the sensor better the GH4 has 4K, it's not even a competition.

 

[Heyseuss Hoolio]

What exactly are your intentions? Shooting video I guess, perhaps not concerned with auto focus speed. Let me just say that while it might be close at 18mm, effective 25mm, it's not even in the same ballpark across the zoom range between the two lenses. The Panasonic 12-35mm is much sharper. In terms of light gather you have a lens that behaves like an F/2.5 lens, so you don't even really gain much in terms of light gather.

Can you explain your focal length and aperture numbers? I'm not sure I'm understanding them correctly.

Overall, this is not a good proposition unless your number 1 main focus priority is shooting video and for the majority at 25mm where the sharpness across the frame might be close to similar, but when you start zooming the Panasonic 12-35 will remain sharper.

Are you sure about your sharpness claim? Maybe it appears sharper since there's more depth of field with the Panasonic lens. I know for sure the Sigma with and without the Metabones is a very good lens, sharp, contrasty, pleasing bokeh.

The GH4 will blow the 70D out of the water in terms of image quality and video quality, not only is the sensor better the GH4 has 4K, it's not even a competition.

dslr4unboxingvids

Some differences I see between the two

• The Sigma is much bigger and heavier, you said you've already borrowed one so you understand this.
• Image stabilization, that's your call between the two, not sure how in-depth you'll be with video rigs for stabilization.
• True with the Metabones, you'll at least have it which will allow you to use the plethora of other Canon lenses to achieve multiple different focal lengths.
• With the Metabones, you're focal length won't be as long, approx. 13-25 vs. 12-35. How much does the 35mm long end mean to you?
• Your aperture with the Sigma will be approx. f1.3, just over two stops of additional light compared with the f2.8 of the Panasonic. If shooting in dark conditions, that's a difference from ISO6400 to ISO1600. Much shallower depth of field too, which I'm sure you noticed after borrowing it.
• The Panasonic, native mount obviously, you'll have autofocus. Not sure how much photography you'll be doing so autofocus may or may not be your thing.
• Personally, I like the Sigma. Lack of autofocus doesn't bother me, I'm proficient at manual focus with the abilities and tricks mirroless allows you to do this with easily. The IQ of the Sigma with & w/out the Metabones is easily great for photography, zooming in, pixel peeping, so videography is a non-issue. The backgroud blur and subject isolation you can achieve with the Sigma and Metabones is very easy and has a nice look.
• Check out the Blackmagic forums and discussions, the Sigma and Metabones combo is plentiful.
• Again, size. Do you mind carrying around the Sigma, which is even longer with the Metabones adapter.

 

[ijm5012]

Which is a better value?

Sigma 18-35mm is $725 if used, and Metabones is $649 from what I see (Canon ef version).

About $1400 vs $1000 for 12-35mm Panasonic. The lens will be used with my GH4.

You are comparing used prices of the Sigma to new prices of the Panasonic. Used price of the Panasonic is between $650-750, so the Sigma combo is more like 2x the price.

However if performance during video is important, take a look at the Olympus 12-40 PRO. It would appear as if image stabilization isn't a huge deal (since the Sigma doesn't include it), and the Olympus is said to perform better regarding aperture stepping while zooming (if you don't zoom, then this isn't an issue). The other nice thing about the Olympus is the closer minimum focusing distance, and the snap manual focus ring with the inscribed focal length markings, which may help during filming.

Unless OIS is a MUST, I would say to look at the Olympus over the Panasonic. Having said that, I still think the Sigma is going to be better, giving you an aperture of f/1.2 on your GH4 (vs. 2.8 for the native m43 zooms), although you zoom range is going to be much shorter (13-25 with the Sigma vs. 12-40 with the Olympus). It all depends on how much you're willing to spend...

 

[Hithertoo]

With a speed booster your Sigma lens receives a 0.7x crop factor reduction it goes from a 2x crop factor to that of 1.4x or about the same as an APS-C lens, but it's also a false reduction in that it does not reduce the actual aperture, so while you have a lens that behaves a stop faster in terms of light gather it actually behaves like like an F/3.6 aperture lens in terms of actual aperture and focusing of the lens.

If you look at the SLR Gear comparison (just to use one site for lens comparison) you can see for yourself. Of course it's not a perfect science directly comparing two different lenses on different cameras. You find the inherent issue with the Sigma lens is that it loses its sharpness advantage particularly as you creep closer to the 35mm end of the zoom.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1609

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1518

--
All views expressed above are my own and are not an expression of how others should think, or a matter of group think for others.

 

[EarthQuake]

With a speed booster your Sigma lens receives a 0.7x crop factor reduction it goes from a 2x crop factor to that of 1.4x or about the same as an APS-C lens, but it's also a false reduction in that it does not reduce the actual aperture, so while you have a lens that behaves a stop faster in terms of light gather it actually behaves like like an F/3.6 aperture lens in terms of actual aperture and focusing of the lens.

If you look at the SLR Gear comparison (just to use one site for lens comparison) you can see for yourself. Of course it's not a perfect science directly comparing two different lenses on different cameras. You find the inherent issue with the Sigma lens is that it loses its sharpness advantage particularly as you creep closer to the 35mm end of the zoom.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1609

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1518

--
All views expressed above are my own and are not an expression of how others should think, or a matter of group think for others.

The Sigma is a 1.8 lens, with speed booster it acts like a 13-25mm ~1.3 M43rds lens in terms of field of view, exposure, depth of field, and light gathering. These numbers are directly comparable to the 12-35/2.8, there is no need to do further conversions.

"In terms of light gather you have a lens that behaves like an F/2.5 lens, so you don't even really gain much in terms of light gather."

In FF equivalence, it acts similar to a 25-50mm 2.5 lens, but in those terms the 12-35/2.8 acts like a 24-70mm 5.6 for DOF and light gathering (for exposure, it's still 1.3 and 2.8 respectively). So F2.5 in this case is extremely fast for a zoom lens, in fact faster than most primes in the M43rds system. The Sigma + speedbooster combo is a hair more than 2 stops faster than the Panasonic.

The 3.6 number you state above only makes sense when talking about FF equivalence without using the speedbooster, so neither here nor there.

 

[Hithertoo]

What you will find is that a focal length reducer does not affect all 3 fields exactly equally. You will end up with a false reading on your aperture so while you'll get F/1.3 in terms of light and in terms of zoom length you'll get a reduction the standard multiplier will apply to your aperture in terms of depth of field making what I said correct.

 

[secretworld]

Which is a better value?

Sigma 18-35mm is $725 if used, and Metabones is $649 from what I see (Canon ef version).

About $1400 vs $1000 for 12-35mm Panasonic. The lens will be used with my GH4.

I know the Sigma has a better/larger focus ring, and somewhat better build quality, but is it worth the price difference?

After borrowing my friends Sigma + Metabones (he has the Nikon version though), it is nice, but not sure if it's worth the extra cost.

One advantage I see with the Sigma and metabones option, is since I'd have the speedbooster I have a bit more flexibility in the future should I decide to get a different canon lens, but still no image stabilization with the Sigma 18-35mm.

It's a tough call.

The most important thing to me is video quality, as I am coming from a T2i and 70D (had the 70D for a week before returning it).

Thanks to anyone who replies, I appreciate it .

Yes it is a tough call! ~f1.4 vs f2.8 but more expensive. Only you can decide. If you are a great video shooter it might be worth it.

 

[brian]

With a speed booster your Sigma lens receives a 0.7x crop factor reduction it goes from a 2x crop factor to that of 1.4x or about the same as an APS-C lens, but it's also a false reduction in that it does not reduce the actual aperture, so while you have a lens that behaves a stop faster in terms of light gather it actually behaves like like an F/3.6 aperture lens in terms of actual aperture and focusing of the lens.

If you look at the SLR Gear comparison (just to use one site for lens comparison) you can see for yourself. Of course it's not a perfect science directly comparing two different lenses on different cameras. You find the inherent issue with the Sigma lens is that it loses its sharpness advantage particularly as you creep closer to the 35mm end of the zoom.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=1609

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1518

 

[RickPick]

You are comparing the used price of the Sigma with the new price of the Panasonic. It looks like the 12-35 f2.8 is available used for about $700 too.

I think you have two different beasts here, so your priorities will determine which is best for you. I would say for all-purpose use the Panasonic wins easily - it's great for video as well as stills and it's on my GX7 all the time. And of course you get OIS and auto focus. But if you have special requirements for video production, such as very low light scenes or very shallow DoF, then the Sigma/Speedbooster combination might well suit you better.

 

[bigley Ling]

for me the beauty of m43 is the AF performance and the ability to have smaller lenses. The idea of having better light gathering from the Sigma is attractive, but then you are restricted manual focusing plus the lens size difference.

I am more into stills than video capture so that may be a reason I would prefer fast snappy AF.