16-35 f/2.8 III vs Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 ART?

[flatpicknut]

Anybody here have experience with both lenses on full frame (5DIV and 5DIII)?

My Samyang 14mm 2.8 was a bargain and I've used it a lot for landscapes and sunsets and even some Milky Way shots, but some decentering has reduced its effectiveness and repair isn't cost effective. I could just buy another, but I'm thing about selling one of my older 5DIII bodies and buying a better wide angle lens. I really want to stick with a zoom and am considering either the Canon or Sigma options. One problem is that selling a 5DIII drops me out of qualification for the CPS Platinum membership and I really prize that - overnight shipping both ways more than pays for it, much less the faster turn-around and greater discount on repairs.

The 16-35 f/2.8 III is worth 12 CPS points, so I could even sell a 5DIII and my 6D and still meet my CPS Platinum requirements.

Obviously 2mm on the wide end is huge, but the 35mm on the long end could be handy for events, weddings, and even some portraiture (with a 70-200 or 100-400II on another body on the other hip).

Any other factors to consider?

 

[Ken60]

Hi, recently discussed ......https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4280972

new 14mm 2.8 autofocus from Samyang is about twice price of manual f2.8. I had a play with 14 to 24 f2.8 on my 5DSR , and was impressed with it even though no chance of filters. Distortion was well handled and it looked sharp to me........ For non astro application the Canon 16 to 35 f4 IS is a cracking little lens with standard 77mm thread.

Price wise you could have the Sigma zoom and the f4 IS for the 16 to 35 f2.8 Canon money.

 

[flatpicknut]

Hi, recently discussed ......https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4280972

The link you referenced is for the f/4 version. I had searched DPReview and didn't find anything specifically to my question. The 14-24 f/2.8 ART hasn't been on the street very long, though.

new 14mm 2.8 autofocus from Samyang is about twice price of manual f2.8.

As I said, I want a zoom.

I had a play with 14 to 24 f2.8 on my 5DSR , and was impressed with it even though no chance of filters. Distortion was well handled and it looked sharp to me........ For non astro application the Canon 16 to 35 f4 IS is a cracking little lens with standard 77mm thread.

Yes, the astro was the reason I'm not considering the 16-35 f/4.

Price wise you could have the Sigma zoom and the f4 IS for the 16 to 35 f2.8 Canon money.

--

Canon 16-35 f/2.8 III is currently $1899 so not quite true.

 

[flatpicknut]

One problem is that selling a 5DIII drops me out of qualification for the CPS Platinum membership and I really prize that - overnight shipping both ways more than pays for it, much less the faster turn-around and greater discount on repairs.

The 16-35 f/2.8 III is worth 12 CPS points, so I could even sell a 5DIII and my 6D and still meet my CPS Platinum requirements.

Oops, I had forgotten to add my 100-400II to my gear, so that puts me with enough points to sell both a 5DIII and the 6D and not need to worry about my CPS Platinum qualifications! Woot!

(I'm still interested in real-world pros and cons between the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III and the Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 ART. I do like buying Canon gear if no other reason that because of the ease of getting my gear cleaned and serviced through Canon's CPS program.)

 

[Pultzar]

They all have advantages and disadvantages. There is no clear winner regardless of price.

Sigma 14-24mm Pros vs Canon 2.8 III

Crazy sharp. At 14mm it is a tiny bit sharper and with less CA than my Sigma 14mm 1.8 on a 5DS! In the center of the frame at all overlapping focal lengths, the Canon is just as sharp. Towards the edges of the frame the Sigma has a clear advantage at 16mm. At 24mm, the Canon is much closer but I still think the Sigma wins at this focal length.

CA towards the edges is much lower on the Sigma. It is truly stunning.

Vignetting on the Sigma is significantly lower compared to the Canon. The Canon is just offensive in this regard and the Sigma does not have a problem. No, you cannot correct for this in post without taking a noise hit towards the edges.

Canon 2.8 III Pros vs Sigma 14-24mm

Size - Canon is smaller and lighter

Filters - I use them often and they would be a royal pain with the Sigma

Cleaning - The Canon zoom is all internal while the Sigma has a front element which moves. Given that the Canon can take filters, this is a big win for the Canon in harsh elements.

Flare - In terms of image quality, this is a huge win for the Canon 2.8 if you are shooting with the sun in the frame. The sun stars and lack of other artifacts are incredible. The Sigma zoom shows a lot more internal reflections. It isn't bad, it's just not in the same league as the Canon. Fixing flare might be almost impossible in post while a little drop in sharpness may not be noticed.

Canon 16-35 2.8 III vs 16-35 F4 IS

Sharpness - The 2.8 III is slightly sharper towards the edges, but not enough to be a differentiating factor in most cases. The difference with the Sigma 14-24 is much larger to my eye.

CA - Slightly better on the 2.8 III. They both have it towards the edges, it's just that on the 2.8 it is less intense and the CA removal feature in Lightroom is able to do more of a complete job.

Flare - Again the 2.8 III wins the race. The F4 is not bad, but the stars are less dramatic and there are more visible artifacts.

Summary (from best to third best)

Sharpness
Sigma 14-24 ART
Canon 16-35 2.8 III
Canon 16-35 F4 IS (almost a tie with the 2.8)

CA
Sigma 14-24 ART
Canon 16-35 2.8 III
Canon 16-35 F4 IS (almost a tie with the 2.8)

Flare
Canon 16-35 2.8 III
Canon 16-35 F4 IS
Sigma 14-24 ART

Handling/Size/Convenience
Canon - Great
Sigma 14-24 ART - Not so great

Bottom line is that they are all great lenses. If I were to have only one for photos, it would be the Canon 16-35 2.8 III. However I also use the IS functionality on the F4 lens for video, so that is a tough trade off. I got them for great prices which is why I even own all of these overlapping lenses. Personally I think the Sigma, although with higher image quality in many cases, will likely get less use. We'll have to see!

 

[flatpicknut]

They all have advantages and disadvantages. There is no clear winner regardless of price.

Sigma 14-24mm Pros vs Canon 2.8 III

Crazy sharp. At 14mm it is a tiny bit sharper and with less CA than my Sigma 14mm 1.8 on a 5DS! In the center of the frame at all overlapping focal lengths, the Canon is just as sharp. Towards the edges of the frame the Sigma has a clear advantage at 16mm. At 24mm, the Canon is much closer but I still think the Sigma wins at this focal length.

CA towards the edges is much lower on the Sigma. It is truly stunning.

Vignetting on the Sigma is significantly lower compared to the Canon. The Canon is just offensive in this regard and the Sigma does not have a problem. No, you cannot correct for this in post without taking a noise hit towards the edges.

Canon 2.8 III Pros vs Sigma 14-24mm

Size - Canon is smaller and lighter

Filters - I use them often and they would be a royal pain with the Sigma

Cleaning - The Canon zoom is all internal while the Sigma has a front element which moves. Given that the Canon can take filters, this is a big win for the Canon in harsh elements.

Flare - In terms of image quality, this is a huge win for the Canon 2.8 if you are shooting with the sun in the frame. The sun stars and lack of other artifacts are incredible. The Sigma zoom shows a lot more internal reflections. It isn't bad, it's just not in the same league as the Canon. Fixing flare might be almost impossible in post while a little drop in sharpness may not be noticed.

Canon 16-35 2.8 III vs 16-35 F4 IS

Sharpness - The 2.8 III is slightly sharper towards the edges, but not enough to be a differentiating factor in most cases. The difference with the Sigma 14-24 is much larger to my eye.

CA - Slightly better on the 2.8 III. They both have it towards the edges, it's just that on the 2.8 it is less intense and the CA removal feature in Lightroom is able to do more of a complete job.

Flare - Again the 2.8 III wins the race. The F4 is not bad, but the stars are less dramatic and there are more visible artifacts.

Summary (from best to third best)

Sharpness
Sigma 14-24 ART
Canon 16-35 2.8 III
Canon 16-35 F4 IS (almost a tie with the 2.8)

CA
Sigma 14-24 ART
Canon 16-35 2.8 III
Canon 16-35 F4 IS (almost a tie with the 2.8)
Flare
Canon 16-35 2.8 III
Canon 16-35 F4 IS
Sigma 14-24 ART
Handling/Size/Convenience
Canon - Great
Sigma 14-24 ART - Not so great

Bottom line is that they are all great lenses. If I were to have only one for photos, it would be the Canon 16-35 2.8 III. However I also use the IS functionality on the F4 lens for video, so that is a tough trade off. I got them for great prices which is why I even own all of these overlapping lenses. Personally I think the Sigma, although with higher image quality in many cases, will likely get less use. We'll have to see!

Thanks for this comprehensive response!

I don't use filters much if ever, so that is less of a factor for me. I also don't do much video, but with the 5DIV am wanting to try more video - IS on the 16-35 f/4 is something I hadn't even considered! I do like the idea of IS for general use, too, but my 24-70 f/2.8 II and Samyang 14mm don't have IS, so IS is not something I depend on for general wider angle shooting. (IS would let me shoot with lower shutter speeds without using a tripod though, so that would be nice.)

Right now, from your input and based on my current needs, I'm leaning toward the Sigma (with possible addition of a 16-35 f/4 for filter use and video? The combined cost of the Sigma and 16-35 f/4 isn't a huge stretch over the 16-35 f/2.8 III.).

Thanks again!