Canon 16-35 f4L vs Sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art

1NoobPhotographer wrote:

Thank you for all your opinions! I am leaning toward more of the canon, but something about that sigma. I will head to the local camera shop to try that Sigma out.

I wonder if you've decided yet?

It would be easy to get sucked in to the idea that 14 mm must be better than 16 mm, when in reality 16 mm is very, very wide (to the point that it's difficult to use) and if you really needed more than that you surely wouldn't need to ask the question.

And while f/2.8 is nice to have, 4-stop IS is more useful. People who say IS isn't useful on wide lenses either have never used one, or don't do anything challenging enough for it to make a difference. Even for action photography - the usual case for aperture over IS - it's angular motion which determines motion blur and that tends to be less with a wide angle composition. In truth you'll rarely run into it as a limiting factor.

Handling such a lens in the shop you're bound to be impressed by the huge bulbous front element and the sheer heft of it. I suspect you would be a lot less enamoured of those two features in real-world use!

Steve Balcombe wrote:

It would be easy to get sucked in to the idea that 14 mm must be better than 16 mm, when in reality 16 mm is very, very wide (to the point that it's difficult to use) and if you really needed more than that you surely wouldn't need to ask the question.

And while f/2.8 is nice to have, 4-stop IS is more useful. People who say IS isn't useful on wide lenses either have never used one, or don't do anything challenging enough for it to make a difference. Even for action photography - the usual case for aperture over IS - it's angular motion which determines motion blur and that tends to be less with a wide angle composition. In truth you'll rarely run into it as a limiting factor.

Handling such a lens in the shop you're bound to be impressed by the huge bulbous front element and the sheer heft of it. I suspect you would be a lot less enamoured of those two features in real-world use!

I got very impressive results on a static composed test on short range targets, but in the real world I got no more than 1 stop of stabilisation. I found I couldn't trust it at less than 1/10s at 16mm or 1/15 at 35mm to deliver the kind of sharp results I wanted. And I do buy a fancy ultrawide to get sharp results.

The comparison of a 16-35 with a 14-24 seems fairly pointless though. Canon does an 11-24 which is much closer in specification.

1NoobPhotographer wrote:

Hello all,

Long time reader first time poster. I am torn between the Canon 16-35 f4L and the new Sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art. This would be for landscape and travel. I shoot with a Canon 5D Mark iii. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

Hey there, also a first time poster but long time reader.

I still haven't got my hands on it but from what I read in reviews the Sigma 14-24 f2.8 Art is an excelent lens. First of all it comes with f2.8 throughout its whole focal length which is useful. The biggest advantage of it, I think, its that it has almost no distortion at its wide end. Combine that with the excelent built quality and sharpness of the Sigma Art series and you got yourself a pretty good setup to work with. Also if night sky photography is an interest this lens is a must.

On the downside the Canon one costs less, weighs almost half the weight and can fit circular filters while the Sigma one can't because of its curved front element. The Canon also has image stabilization.

There is also another alternative you may want to look, the Tamron 15-30 f2.8. A bit bulky like the Sigma, also curved front element but lower price and image stabilization.

Good luck with your choise!

fishy wishy wrote:

Ken60 wrote:

I have the 16-35 Canon and have shot and played with the Sigma 14 -24 ART.

BOTH are great in their own way. IS is lovely to have , but remember it will only aid you in being still , NOT you scene or people

I don't want to beat up on you, but I think it's funny when people trot out this standard line for wideangles.

Who is using a 14-24 on people or action? If you were shooting me with a 24mm I would tell you where to get off.

Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 on Canon 6D.

David those are great colours from the Rokinon, I read that the 14mm AF f2.8 is as good as the manual focus but with less distortion. For about £400 it is amazing.

I would love to see a "same shot" comparison from 14mmf2.8 Samyang  and 14mm f2.8 Sigma 14-24.  THis is such a hard area to choose from at the moment. When I tried the Sigma I found it to be better on distortion and vignetting than Canon's own.

Ken60 wrote:

David those are great colours from the Rokinon, I read that the 14mm AF f2.8 is as good as the manual focus but with less distortion. For about £400 it is amazing.

I would love to see a "same shot" comparison from 14mmf2.8 Samyang and 14mm f2.8 Sigma 14-24. THis is such a hard area to choose from at the moment. When I tried the Sigma I found it to be better on distortion and vignetting than Canon's own.

Yeah I was happy with the Rokinon but I replaced it with the Canon 16-35 f4L which was what I really wanted. At 3x the cost though.

Andy01 wrote:

Ken60 wrote:

David those are great colours from the Rokinon, I read that the 14mm AF f2.8 is as good as the manual focus but with less distortion. For about £400 it is amazing.

I would love to see a "same shot" comparison from 14mmf2.8 Samyang and 14mm f2.8 Sigma 14-24. THis is such a hard area to choose from at the moment. When I tried the Sigma I found it to be better on distortion and vignetting than Canon's own.

I recently tried a bunch of UWA lenses (for astro) in a camera store and found;

Samyang 14mm f2.8 - not good at all (maybe a bad copy ?)

Samyang 14mm f2.8 AF - better than MF (by a fair bit)

Samyang 14mm f2.4 XP/SP - much better tha both the others. Better build, much less distortion (and more "normal"distortion), smoother action of MF and sharper (by a fair margin).

Irix 15mm f2.4 (both Firefly & Blackstone) - nice feel to the lenses, but QC issues, the infinity click stop isn't infinity and they got noticably sharper past infinity. Still not as sharp as Samyang f2.4.

Sigma 14mm f1.8 - nice and sharp, less vignetting than any others, relatively low distortion. The best lens I tried, but a beast of a thing (big & heavy) and much more $.

I bought the Samyang 14mm f2.4 and do not regret it. I have only had it a couple of months but have used it a bit for Milky way pics and some daytime (and dusk) landscapes. I almost just leave it on infinity and forget about focusing.

I didn't consider the Sigma zoom because of price and size/weight.

Colin

Either the Canon 14L or the 11-24L would be the best quality but $$$$

Hi ANdy I tried the 14- 24 Sigma and the 14mm f1.8 Sigma side by side and to be honest I looked at the pics at home and decided I would go for the zoom .... not a lot between them and I like the variable focal length and f2.8.

I find this variation in sample horrific from many manufacturers! The basic Samyang was known for all the problems of decentering through moustache. I am not suggesting Sigma cant make a -@~~ up of a lens too .

Prices here from an online discount

14- 24 Sigma £949

Rok SP 14mm f2.4 £900

Samyang 14mm AF f2.8 479

Samyang manual 14mm f2.8 £229

Sigma 14mm f1.8 £ 1009

Canon 14mm f2.8 £1200

The Canon version is reviewed to be poor quality at edges  with strong vignette and not too good with coma for astro.

So quite a variation ... but for me its a toss between Sigma zoom and AF Samyang... with the zoom giving the ability to be more than a one trick pony.