Was curious if anyone has both that can comment on which they think is better. I leaning towards the 35 1.4 since I'm mostly full frame now but a zoom is nice.
Sigma 35 1.4 vs Sigma 18-35 1.8
- Thread starter brianleighty
- Start date
- Status
I got my 35 f1.4 a few months back and it rarely comes off my camera. I don't have the Sigma 18-35; I do use my Canon 16-35 a fair bit, though mostly only at 16-20. The Sigma 35 is not small, but not too big either. It delivers excellent images and has quickly become my favorite lens.
Upvote
0
Thanks for the input. I think the 35 1.4 is more practical for me. I guess I was just looking for an excuse to rent the 18-35 to try it out but the two weddings I've shot with a 35mm prime I've gotten a lot of use out of it. The zoom is nice but it doesn't cover a large range and I can use the 70-200 for that by stepping back some. My minds made up. The 35 1.4 is my next lens. I'd get the 70-200 2.8 is ii but that's currently out of my price rangemlbaker74 said:
. I'll just have to keep renting that one.
Upvote
0
It’s built just like the 35mm f/1.4, and that’s a good thing. It’s a gorgeous blend of metal and rubber with only a few plastic parts.
Upvote
0
I rented the 35 1.4 a few months back, and it was fantastic. My rental of the 18-35mm 1.8 comes in today, looking forward to comparing the two.
Upvote
0
Bradford any input on how it went. Just curious. I ended up buying the 35 1.4. Haven't gotten to use it too much but got a lot of work coming up in the few months. Got a great deal so I can't complain ($780)bradfordswood said:
Upvote
0
That is a great deal on the 35.
I took the rented 18-35 on a trip to Chicago and shot roughly 500 pictures, 300 of which were keepers. I haven't processed any of them yet, as I'm waiting for Lightroom to release a lens correction profile.
My copy seemed to hunt a little, especially in low light. Keep in mind I shoot on a 60d, so not the greatest autofocus to begin with. I did like the range a lot; I have a 17-40L so this was pretty close in terms of focal lengths.
I've been thinking a lot about switching to full frame, and thought maybe this lens would convince me to stay with crop. No conclusion so far. I wanted to love this lens, and I still could, but I won't know for sure until I get a chance to process all my shots.
I took the rented 18-35 on a trip to Chicago and shot roughly 500 pictures, 300 of which were keepers. I haven't processed any of them yet, as I'm waiting for Lightroom to release a lens correction profile.
My copy seemed to hunt a little, especially in low light. Keep in mind I shoot on a 60d, so not the greatest autofocus to begin with. I did like the range a lot; I have a 17-40L so this was pretty close in terms of focal lengths.
I've been thinking a lot about switching to full frame, and thought maybe this lens would convince me to stay with crop. No conclusion so far. I wanted to love this lens, and I still could, but I won't know for sure until I get a chance to process all my shots.
Upvote
0
I'm thinking that the 18-35mm is really more of a dslr videographers dream lens? Due to the constant aperture. Range isn't offering much but at 1.8... 
35mm 1.4.. Hmm. They both sound really good. You could break it down by what you shoot and if you have aps-c sensor? They're both highly regarded for the overall quality and bang for the buck.
35mm 1.4.. Hmm. They both sound really good. You could break it down by what you shoot and if you have aps-c sensor? They're both highly regarded for the overall quality and bang for the buck.
Upvote
0
bradfordswood said:
You know Bryan mentioned that it CAN be mounted on full frame, just has a ton of vignetting at the wide end. Curious how well it would do but it's still an interesting lens if the outer quality isn't too bad. Heck the 35 2.0 canon is aweful on the outside on full frame and if it was for the focusing on it it wouldn't be too bad
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
