Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 vs. Canon 16-35mm f2.8

J

JT Thurlow

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hi there,

I need to buy a wide-angle lens and am not sure which to go for out of the Sigma and Canon.

I often shoot landscapes in low light so I imagine I will put the fastness of the Sigma to use, though I primarily shoot with a Canon L 50mm f1.4 so am concerned that mixing brands will result in a disparate feel.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
 
If you're shooting 6K on dragon, as far as I know the Sigma do not cover 18mm@6K but does cover it from about 21mm and if you consider you could shoot at 16mm on the Canon that is quite a difference between 21mm on the Sigma to 16mm on the Canon...

As for matching, I find it pretty easy now days to match any modern glass, but it's obviously easier to have exactly the same colours.

Main advantage of the Sigma is gaining 1.5 stops more light, and the fact the lens doesn't extend while focusing and zooming (the same as cine lenses).
 
Oron Cohen said:
If you're shooting 6K on dragon, as far as I know the Sigma do not cover 18mm@6K but does cover it from about 21mm and if you consider you could shoot at 16mm on the Canon that is quite a difference between 21mm on the Sigma to 16mm on the Canon...

As for matching, I find it pretty easy now days to match any modern glass, but it's obviously easier to have exactly the same colours.

Main advantage of the Sigma is gaining 1.5 stops more light, and the fact the lens doesn't extend while focusing and zooming (the same as cine lenses).
Click to expand...


The Canon 16-35 does not extend during zoom or focus either. So, the real advantage would be the wider aperture of the Sigma.

The con of the Sigma, as mentioned, is that it is designed for APS-C sensors with 1.66 crop factor. Which means it will cover RED 4.5k...but not more without vignetting. So depending on what camera you use or what your plan is this may or may not be a problem for you.

I own a Canon 16-35 and am presently looking at getting the Sigma 18-35 ART. I shoot on a Scarlet-W which maxes out at 5K... However I have to go down to 4.5k or 4K anyways if I want to shoot faster frame rates. Which is what I want to use this lens for.

I wish it covered full frame because that would make it more versatile for me because I also shoot stills on a 5Dmk3... And I wish the lens was like an 18-50 instead of only 35mm... Because that would mean I could avoid a lens swap when I need a 50mm.


Even still I'm looking at picking this lens up because I think it mates well "look" wise with the Dragon sensor. And I want the wider aperture.
 
Having owned both lenses I must say the Sigma has a completely different look than the 16-35. Some people dont care for it but I think it is my favorite go to lens. I shoot it all the time at 6k on Epic Dragon. You need to watch out for the slight vignette at 18-20mm. But if I get vignette I just crop in a few %. My copy sings at F2-2.2.
 
Beside the fact that the Sigma is not covering full frame, it would rather go with it. The look is really great on Sigma – I would say "creamy".



______________________________
Motionary – Videoproduktion Schweiz

2x RED EPIC, 2x CANON 1DX MARK II, CINEPRIMES, GIMBAL AERIAL…
 
The sigma art 18-35 blows the canon 16-35 away in every way, except that it won't fill an 8k sensor. Not only is sigma way sharper than the canon but it's the fastest zoom lens ever made and its sharp wide open at 1.8! It's also a great gimbal lens because the weight distribution will not change if you are at 18mm or 35mm. The canon 16-35 also slightly distorts the image and squeezes the image horizontally which is not pretty. I've used all of the canon L zooms and the 16-35 is my least favorite, in fact I refuse to use it because of all of these limitations. The sigma on the other hand is perfect and nearly half the price of the canon.
 
The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is not a wide angle lens, rather it is a mid range zoom, the APS-C version of the 24-70mm f2.8 FF lens.
Just like how the Sigma 50-100mm f1.8 is the APS-C version of the 70-200mm f2.8 FF lens.
(although in each case giving up a bit of reach, for the extra speed)
 
I read here and there contradictive info about the vignetting of the Sigma à 18mm 1.8. Is it covering without vignetting the Scarlet-W 5K full frame ?

Thanks,

Kristin
 
If you really need the f stop go with the Sigma. Otherwise, I'd consider the newer 16-35 f4L. I have one as a stills lens and it's leaps and bounds better than the 2.8L in terms of image quality.
 
Spencer Weaver said:
I wish it covered full frame because that would make it more versatile for me because I also shoot stills on a 5Dmk3... And I wish the lens was like an 18-50 instead of only 35mm... Because that would mean I could avoid a lens swap when I need a 50mm.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the magic you get with your 50mm prime wouldn't be there in a zoom. Perhaps I'm wrong but usually zooms have a whole other character, and a 50mm especially, you'd probably want that magic you get from the prime. I totally get the need for speed and zero lens swaps in certain situations, and have often used my old red zoom 18-50 when i needed a 50 =]
 
Matt Bass said:
The sigma art 18-35 blows the canon 16-35 away in every way, except that it won't fill an 8k sensor. Not only is sigma way sharper than the canon but it's the fastest zoom lens ever made and its sharp wide open at 1.8! It's also a great gimbal lens because the weight distribution will not change if you are at 18mm or 35mm. The canon 16-35 also slightly distorts the image and squeezes the image horizontally which is not pretty. I've used all of the canon L zooms and the 16-35 is my least favorite, in fact I refuse to use it because of all of these limitations. The sigma on the other hand is perfect and nearly half the price of the canon.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about 2.8 canon, yes it has problems, however the f4 with is a great lens, and if you like 16-35 range, there is an argument to be made to have both.
 
Ashley Stracke said:
I'd imagine the magic you get with your 50mm prime wouldn't be there in a zoom. Perhaps I'm wrong but usually zooms have a whole other character, and a 50mm especially, you'd probably want that magic you get from the prime. I totally get the need for speed and zero lens swaps in certain situations, and have often used my old red zoom 18-50 when i needed a 50 =]
Click to expand...

You're probably right, Ashley. I think I'm convinced to go with the sigma 18-35.

Now just wondering if I should buy the 50-100 too??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top