Ditching Sigma 35/1.4 for Canon 16-35/4 ?

[gigabellone]

I have found a fairly good deal on a new Canon 16-35/4 IS, and i'm very tempted to go for it, for i've been missing an UWA lens since i did the switch to FF (over 2 years ago!). Right now i have the 35mm covered by the Sigma Art, which i love to use while taking pictures indoor. But sadly, if i take the 16-35/4 i can't justify owning both, so it would have to go.

The alternative would be keeping the Sigma 35mm and going for an UWA prime. This choice would be far more expensive, and will make my kit grow even more, but could be viable if said UWA would deliver better results than the Canon 16-35/4. The first that came to my mind is the Zeiss Milvus 21/2.8, but i'm open to more suggestions.

My aim is to start doing more landscape work. Right now i have a 6D and 3 lenses: Sigma 35/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, Canon 85/1.8. Next step would be selling the 85 and getting a Canon 70-200/4 IS or a 70-300L, but i'll cover that in another topic when the time comes. ;D

 

[jd7]

If landscape is your thing then trading the 35 Art for a 16-35/4 IS sounds like a good move to me. I feel confident you would get far more benefit from having the zoom range (and also the IS, if you ever shoot landscapes handheld) available than from the sigma's wider aperture.

That said, you mention you like the 35 Art for indoor use, and you mention the possibility of adding a wide prime like a zeiss 21 to your kit. I know you said you can't justify having two lenses which cover 35 mm, but if you can afford it, why not add the 16-35 while keeping the 35 Art? They both cover 35 mm but they are very different lenses and useful in different situations.

I would quite like to add an ultra wide to my kit (and I think I'd probably go for the 16-35/4 IS), but personally I wouldn't trade my 35 Art for it. But the 35 Art is in my kit for purposes other than landscapes. For landscapes I would usually use one of my zooms.

 

[gigabellone]

Well, adding an UWA prime would be a hard choice: it would cost a lot more, and i'm also considering an overhaul of my gear to really consider what i need, and try to keep everything packed in a somewhat compact and not too heavy package. On several occasions i have left my gear at home because of either size, weight, bad camera bag choice, unwieldy tripod.

I'll buy the 16-35/4 and keep the Sigma 35 for a while, just to be sure i'm doing the right thing.

Thanks for the feedback and the insight!

 

[ahsanford]

It all depends on what you shoot:

I see the Sigma 35 Art as being ideal for low light, concerts (near the stage), environmental portraiture, street, general walkaround, and possibly astro? (good coma performances and f/1.4 says yes, a wider than normal FOV says no -- but in full disclosure I don't shoot astro and would not be the ace to make this recommendation)

The Canon 16-35 f/4L IS is the sharpest UWA zoom Canon has ever produced, and it is overwhelmingly the best choice for landscape work (presuming it also must have AF for general wide angle use). Videographers also like the lens as it has IS.

That's not to say you can't shoot the 16-35 in low light and you can't shoot a landscape with the Sigma. Not at all. It's just that I don't see these lenses directly competing with each other -- where each lens shines, you'd probably not use the other one at all for that purpose. I rarely see a 35mm prime on a tripod shooting a waterfall, and I would never shoot street with an f/4 zoom, but in both cases, you could if you wanted to.

Seems like you are rounding out you portfolio of lenses. In this instance, 'trading up' can be very rewarding, but (a) in this case, it isn't trading up or down -- these are different lenses for different purposes and (b) you probably need to expand your lens collection more than you need to improve a lens you already have.

So, personally, I'd keep the three primes you have, prioritize the type of shooting you want to do that these three lenses don't allow you to do, figure out the best lens to do that in your budget, save up and buy it. The Canon 16-35 f/4L IS is formidable lens, and unlike some other overpriced L glass, I find this one is worth every penny.

- A

 

[LovePhotography]

Personally, I'd take the zoom, despite that fact that I'm an avowed pixel peeper.
Unless you are unbelievably picky, if you run the same shot through DxO 10, Lightroom, (or whatever), 99.9% of the time you'll never know the difference in the real world. And, the zoom gives you tons more framing options.
I've got a bunch of top-of-the-line lenses now, all new in the last two years, including 24mm tilt shift, Sig A 50, and about 6 more great lenses from 8mm to 600mm, and, when I take a general pic, invariably my lens of choice is the Sig Art 24-105, the Canon 70-200 2.8ii or the Canon EF 16-35 f4. They are better than I need for almost every shot I take (especially after DxO), and are way more versatile. Time is money. Life is too short to spend carefully switching lenses or walking forward, backward, forward, backward....

 

[gigabellone]

I just got the 16-35/4 IS today. It's my first red ring lens, and i have very high expectations. It's light, yet perfectly assembled. I liked the rubber gasket on the mount for extra sealing. It's all plastic though, and i like the Sigma's metal build more. My sister persuaded me to lend her my Sigma 35 Art indefinitely, so i'm sort of keeping it.

 

[TeT]

The only thing they have in common is 35mm... While in situations landscape with a 35mm is quite popular... Low light with the 16 35 L is not (at least not with any subject movement)

I think there is room for both in your kit. Wait and see if you truly are not using the 35 1.4 anymore

 

[old-pr-pix]

Wow! Three days from first inquiry to having new lens in hand... I sometimes wish I could decide that quick... I would have taken advantage of several 'great deals' that I otherwise have missed out on. On the other hand, I probably have saved myself a lot a cash by hesitating.

16-35 should be great for landscape... let us know what you think once you've had a chance to give it a workout.

 

[EdB]

Why wouldn't you keep the 35 and just get a $300 Sammy 14 for landscape?

 

[Ozarker]

It's your money and of course you can do whatever you like. If it were me, I would keep the 35mm due to f/1.4. There is a huge gap between f/1.4 and f/4. That would be my justification for having both. However, I wouldn't feel the need to justify what I want even to myself.

One of these days I will also get the stellar Canon 16-35 f/4L. What a steal that lens is! However, I won't sell anything at all to get it (Tamron 15-30 f/2.8L).

I've come to look at lenses like I do guns... never sell any of them.

Sell a camera body? Yes. Lens? No way. Not an "L" lens anyway.

From what I understand people love the Sigma Art lenses. Would what you get selling it be worth it?

I hope you are happy with whatever decision you make.

 

[Ozarker]

Well, adding an UWA prime would be a hard choice: it would cost a lot more, and i'm also considering an overhaul of my gear to really consider what i need, and try to keep everything packed in a somewhat compact and not too heavy package. On several occasions i have left my gear at home because of either size, weight, bad camera bag choice, unwieldy tripod.

I'll buy the 16-35/4 and keep the Sigma 35 for a while, just to be sure i'm doing the right thing.

Thanks for the feedback and the insight!

I think you are making a very wise decision to keep both for a while. Good thinking.