canon 16-35ii or sigma 12-24 ii

[alexturton]

I'm after a wide angle lens for FF 5d3.

I already have canon 24mm 1.4 so I'm not to concerned with low light shooting at wide apertures.

I'm after it to use pretty much at the wide end, although decent performance performance at the long end wouldn't be go unmixed.

Want to use for it landscapes, environ portraits and close up wacky wide abstracts.

ANyone done a comparison of the two lesnes? is there much difference between 12 and 16mm? is the canon worth the extra £ in terms of IQ?

 

[RyanSandsPhotography]

I've owned both the Canon 16-35 f2.8 and the Sigma 12-24. What I can say is that there is a difference between 12mm and 16mm. The Sigma is a great ultra wide angled lens if that is what you are looking for. In my opinion your not going to win any awards for image quality but it definitely gets the job done. I used my Sigma for many years on architectural shoots and it worked great. The reason I stepped up to the Canon 16-35 f2.8 ii is because I now shoot nothing but weddings and the Canon suits my needs better than the Sigma ever could. I actually sold my Sigma after I acquired the Canon, although sometimes I do miss that ultra wide factor for churches...but other than that the Canon beats the Sigma on image quality hands down. The bokeh is better on the Canon so is the sharpness and color/contrast. For me, it's just an overall better quality lens. If your looking for ultra wide angle go for the Sigma, but if image quality is what your after, the Canon wins. Just depends on what your needs are.

 

[moocowe]

There's quite a big difference between 12mm and 16mm.
I found this image on Google that demonstrates how big the difference is.
http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_files/articles/sigma_12-24_review/lenses-12mm_vs_14mm_vs_16mm.jpg

Are you specifically after a zoom? The Samyang/Rokinon 14mm prime might be worth looking at if you fancy a cheaper option.

 

[alexturton]

thanks for these responses.

I would probably learn on the side of quality rather than wide. I have a fisheye so not to bothered about getting ultra ultra wide.

I don't want a rokinon/samyang strictly because I want AF

 

[MK5GTI]

i believe there is a version 2 of the sigma 12-24, make sure you are comparing the version two to the 16-35L

 

[Dylan777]

No comment on Sigma.

As prev. owner of 16-35 II, this lens is excellent from f8 - f16. You might want to carry a tripod for nighttime landscape shots. At f2.8, this lens performs below my ave joe's expectation. Mine copy was great at f8 - f11.

I tried Nikon 14-24 on D800 through a friend. I do like the 14mm effects more than 16mm, not to mention it's sharp even at f2.8.

I'm thinking Canon 14mm II.

 

[mackguyver]

I own both and they both have their own strengths and weaknesses. I have also compared it to the 14mm f/2.8 II. Here are my thoughts on each:

Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 II USM
Pros:

• You can use filters
• Center is sharp at just about all focal lengths/apertures
• Corners sharp beyond f/8, but never quite as sharp as center
• Distortion pretty good considering how wide it is
• 24-35mm focal range is VERY useful to have
• Built like a tank

Cons:

• After using the 12-24, 16mm seems narrow and constraining
• 82mm filters ain't cheap, but if you can't afford the hub caps, you can't afford the car, right?
• Hood is huge and takes up a lot of room in your bag

Conclusion: A great all-around lens for environmental portraits, events, landscapes, and more.

Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II
Pros:

• 12mm is f!@#$ing WIDE!
• Pretty sharp at f/11-16
• Distortion is high, but can be corrected in DxO / PS / LR
• You can achieve very unique looks with it
• Photos from it have been very popular with my clients
• Built solid, but not like L series
• CA about average - a bit higher in the corners

Cons:

• 12-24 isn't much of a range
• No filters without using one of those crazy rigs (like the Nikon 14-24)
• Need to be very careful with front element
• CA pretty high in extreme corners

Conclusion: Great lens for landscapes and architecture, but you need to stop it down to f/11 pretty much all the time. No other lens can give you this wide of (rectilinear views) so you will get very unique photos. Difficult to master shooting at 12mm.

The 14mm f/2.8 II is a great lens, but very pricey. It's FOV is nowhere near as wide as 12mm (14mm covers roughly 2/3 of the 12mm frame). It's MUCH more compact than the other two lenses. The distortion is incredibly low and there is almost no CA.

The 16-35 II is the most useful and versatile lens. The 12-24 II is great for really unique shots but isn't as useful for subjects other than landscapes and architecture. Stopping down to f/11 isn't a big deal because you can hand hold at 1/15s!

The 14mm II offers the best image quality, but can't use filters and is "only" a 14mm lens and is generally too wide for all but the most unusual portraits.

I'd probably go with the 16-35 II, unless you want 12mm for really unique shots, or 14mm is the only focal length you need and you have to have the ultimate IQ.

P.S. Of course you could always to the Nikon 14-24 with a Novoflex adapter like Marc Adamus and many others...

 

[mackguyver]

P.P.S. Canon 16-35 II at 16mm on 5D MkII (Hilton Orlando, FL):

vs. Sigma 12-24 II at 12mm on 5D MkII (Hilton Sandestin Beach, FL):