RF 16mm vs Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II

Hi
I'm afraid it's usual comparison request.

I have a R6 - having come from a long line of Canon SLRs, all the way back to film. I'm gradually replacing a lot of the old EF glass with RF; not necessarily L lenses, as I find the RF primes very good for what I need and do.

I have a legacy Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II. I like it; it's not the best lens, but it's nice and wide, and as I spend quite a bit of time on the wide open beaches of Norfolk (UK!), I use it a lot. And it works on the R6; no issues at all really.

I've also read many bad reports of the RF 16mm.

But - the RF 16mm is small, throw in pocket size. And of course faster. Ideal for taking another lens, and then being able to swap when an opportunity arises. The extra size of the Sigma, and the adaptor means I'm less likely to carry it, and therefore less likely to use it. Neither lens is something you can really just leave on for general snapping. If I did swap, I would be losing that extra 4mm, which is a quite a lot at this focal range.

Anyone use both? Anyone have any opinions on which direction I should go? Should I just get a better bag?

Many thanks

My idea is to have RF 16 just in case on a backpack or bag and if I see occasion to use it I'm using it.

as a casual (using from time to time) wide angle lens (if you are ok with correction in post process thats are really needed) this lens is OK.

If you focus of intrest is a landscape and you mainly uses wide angle lenses on your daily basis I strongly suggest to find better solution or stay with your current lens.

thanks

the sigma would be on (or at least with me) 2-3 days a week I guess. Possibly not always needed or used.

But then there are times I just want to travel light, and that of course is when you find you need a wider angle than a 24mm

I know speed isn't generally an issue with WA, but there are times I take a photo inside with the Sigma, and it's just too slow. That extra few stops with the RF 16mm could come in handy. And yes, I accept the amount of processing needed to produce a viable image.

Amefra wrote:

Hi
I'm afraid it's usual comparison request.

I have a R6 - having come from a long line of Canon SLRs, all the way back to film. I'm gradually replacing a lot of the old EF glass with RF; not necessarily L lenses, as I find the RF primes very good for what I need and do.

I have a legacy Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II. I like it; it's not the best lens, but it's nice and wide, and as I spend quite a bit of time on the wide open beaches of Norfolk (UK!), I use it a lot. And it works on the R6; no issues at all really.

I've also read many bad reports of the RF 16mm.

But - the RF 16mm is small, throw in pocket size. And of course faster. Ideal for taking another lens, and then being able to swap when an opportunity arises. The extra size of the Sigma, and the adaptor means I'm less likely to carry it, and therefore less likely to use it. Neither lens is something you can really just leave on for general snapping. If I did swap, I would be losing that extra 4mm, which is a quite a lot at this focal range.

Anyone use both? Anyone have any opinions on which direction I should go? Should I just get a better bag?

Many thanks

I don’t personally have experience of the Sigma 12-24 but always like to have an UWA, so have had EF 17-40, 16-35 and now RF14-35. However I don’t always carry one, and that is where the tiny RF16/2.8 is perfect. Most criticism of the 16 comes from those who are either unaware or unwilling to accept that it is specifically designed to be used with software correction. With a profile it is actually very good - I’ve made A3+ prints which stand comparison in the corners with results from far more expensive lenses. Viewing at 100% or 200% on a monitor looks worse than on a print! What you will notice is that the corners don’t improve much at smaller apertures (f4-5.6 is optimal), and due to vignetting correction (which is also necessary for most UWA zooms), high ISOs may give more noise in the corners as they have to be lifted more. The best profiles in my view are Canon’s own DPP, and DXO Photolab. At the price it’s an easy option and super easy to carry. Also if you crop to the equivalent of about 20mm you avoid some of the corner issues. I wouldn’t be without it.

many thanks.I'm coming around to the view I should be getting the 16mm...and selling the Sigma. At some point 

IF 16mm is OK I'd def be looking at the 15-30 STM

Has *slightly* less (but still ridiculous IMO) distortion on the wide end, but is way more versatile IMO and of course goes wider. If you turn off distortion correction it might very well be a 12mm fisheye