Sigma 8-16mm vs Canon 16-35mm

[00Q]

Im currently have:

Canon 450D

Sigma 8-16mm
Canon 24-70mm
Sigma 70-200mm OS
Sigma 50mm f/1.4

+ x2 teleconverter

Im planning to get a second hand 5DMKII sometime in the next month or so. This is will then complete my gear and I will stick to this for sometime. The 450D then will act as a second hand back up, and also for shooting things when I need a bit of a reach. Now crazy as it sounds, Im planning to take ALL of this backpacking. ( 6 months or so ).

One idea I have been thinking is to sell the 450D with the 8-16mm as that only works on the APS-C. And then get a 16-35mm on the FF. What do you guys think? ( The Sigma 8-16 has really nice IQ)

The upside:
1) I love the build quality of the 16-35mm. It can take some beating in the pack.
2) I will carry less gear = less weight.
3) I can then go out carrying 16-35 and 24-70 and 1 camera without carry 2 when I need to shoot wide.

The downside: :-\
1) I lose my back up body which can be useful when
i) I'm going into a dodgy area, I can "afford" to lose the 450D as opposed to the 5DMKII
ii) When I need to shoot really tight. The 200mm + x2 extender gives me 600mm
2) I lose out on the few mm at the wide end

What do you think? I checked out the reviews on the 16-35mm. It seems to have more barel distortion than the new Sigma. Does anyone know how the image quality compare? The IQ on the sigma is on par with the canon 10-22mm that I once had. Are the images sharper and more vibrant on the 16-35mm?

 

[Loswr]

Comparing the Sigma 8-16mm to the Canon 16-35mm II on the same APS-C body, the Sigma will have a slight IQ edge (similar distortion, slightly sharper).

Comparing the Sigma on a 450D to the 16-35 on a 5DII, the FF will win in everything except a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end.

 

[jwong]

No chance of swapping the 8-16 with the 16-35 without sacrificing the 450D? If you were able to keep the 450D, then you'd maintain your long reach, and the bag will get only a bit heavier by replacing the 8-16 with the 16-35.

 

[00Q]

Comparing the Sigma 8-16mm to the Canon 16-35mm II on the same APS-C body, the Sigma will have a slight IQ edge (similar distortion, slightly sharper).

Comparing the Sigma on a 450D to the 16-35 on a 5DII, the FF will win in everything except a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end.

Thanks for the reply. In which areas will the FF wins with the 16-35? Image quality or colours? 16mm on Ff is not as wide as 8mm on APS-C...

 

[pranav]

Sigma 8-16 is the best and most fun wide angle lens on crop body. Beware there is huge learning curve for this lens. You cant just point and shoot with this. You have to think about lines and depth/perspective expansion. For this price and focal length there isn't a better non-fisheye FF alternative. Remember 1mm makes a really huge difference at ultra wide angle side. Honestly I would have preferred 8mm faster prime (but it wouldn't have been cheap then). Another less known fact - You can mount this lens on FF body; you would get dark circle around the image if you go less than 16mm (I know it it kind of defeats the purpose of wide angle but you could get cropped depth perception of 8mm at least).
Neuro - You can't get 8mm(~12mm on FF) depth perspective with 16-35. I reiterate, even 1 mm extra is really huge on this side of focal length scale. And I tend to use this lens at 8mm 80% of the time.

 

[00Q]

Sigma 8-16 is the best and most fun wide angle lens on crop body. Beware there is huge learning curve for this lens. You cant just point and shoot with this. You have to think about lines and depth/perspective expansion. For this price and focal length there isn't a better non-fisheye FF alternative. Remember 1mm makes a really huge difference at ultra wide angle side. Honestly I would have preferred 8mm faster prime (but it wouldn't have been cheap then). Another less known fact - You can mount this lens on FF body; you would get dark circle around the image if you go less than 16mm (I know it it kind of defeats the purpose of wide angle but you could get cropped depth perception of 8mm at least).
Neuro - You can't get 8mm(~12mm on FF) depth perspective with 16-35. I reiterate, even 1 mm extra is really huge on this side of focal length scale. And I tend to use this lens at 8mm 80% of the time.

I do indeed love that extra few mm on the 8-16. Im just trying to balance the pros and cons. If the image quality of the L lens on the FF is much better, I can consider swapping at the expense of the few mm on the wide end.

 

[pranav]

I do indeed love that extra few mm on the 8-16. Im just trying to balance the pros and cons. If the image quality of the L lens on the FF is much better, I can consider swapping at the expense of the few mm on the wide end.
[/quote]
I guess that would be really tough decision and would depend of specific lens use too. 16-35 on FF is going to be better and faster at equivalent focal lengths. That said, Sigma 8-16 has good IQ and low distortion even at 8 mm (read photozone review- this is one of the very few lenses they highly recommend). So, if you need those 4 mm's you will not regret it.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro - You can't get 8mm(~12mm on FF) depth perspective with 16-35. I reiterate, even 1 mm extra is really huge on this side of focal length scale.

Certainly not. I was discussing the IQ of the lenses, not focal lengths. But actually, you can get the same 'depth perspective' from both lenses, since the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject. But obviously, you can't get as wide an AoV at 16mm on FF as 8mm on APS-C.

Thanks for the reply. In which areas will the FF wins with the 16-35? Image quality or colours? 16mm on Ff is not as wide as 8mm on APS-C...

Color and saturation, a bit on sharpness/resolution.

 

[00Q]

Neuro - You can't get 8mm(~12mm on FF) depth perspective with 16-35. I reiterate, even 1 mm extra is really huge on this side of focal length scale.

Certainly not. I was discussing the IQ of the lenses, not focal lengths. But actually, you can get the same 'depth perspective' from both lenses, since the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject. But obviously, you can't get as wide an AoV at 16mm on FF as 8mm on APS-C.

Thanks for the reply. In which areas will the FF wins with the 16-35? Image quality or colours? 16mm on Ff is not as wide as 8mm on APS-C...

Color and saturation, a bit on sharpness/resolution.

It was mentioned that 8-16mm is better on the APS-C. Surely the sharpness isnt changed when the sensor is replaced with FF?

 

[Loswr]

It was mentioned that 8-16mm is better on the APS-C. Surely the sharpness isnt changed when the sensor is replaced with FF?

The inherent sharpness of the lens, no. But unless you can judge inherent lens sharpness by looking through the bare lens with your eye, or you have one of the instruments which Zeiss uses to empirically measure lens MTF in your garage (it might cost more than your house), the only way to compare is to test a system of camera + lens. In this case, the 16-35 II on 5DII will deliver higher total resolution than the 8-16mm on the 450D.

 

[pranav]

Neuro - You can't get 8mm(~12mm on FF) depth perspective with 16-35. I reiterate, even 1 mm extra is really huge on this side of focal length scale.

Certainly not. I was discussing the IQ of the lenses, not focal lengths. But actually, you can get the same 'depth perspective' from both lenses, since the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject. But obviously, you can't get as wide an AoV at 16mm on FF as 8mm on APS-C.

Thanks for the reply. In which areas will the FF wins with the 16-35? Image quality or colours? 16mm on Ff is not as wide as 8mm on APS-C...

Color and saturation, a bit on sharpness/resolution.

You can't get the same depth perspective (specifically z-expansion) if shooting close distance at 12 mm FF compared to closed distance at 16 mm FF (reason real estate agents use UWA). And IMHO, to get best of UWA you have to get close.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro - You can't get 8mm(~12mm on FF) depth perspective with 16-35. I reiterate, even 1 mm extra is really huge on this side of focal length scale.

But actually, you can get the same 'depth perspective' from both lenses, since the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject. But obviously, you can't get as wide an AoV at 16mm on FF as 8mm on APS-C.

You can't get the same depth perspective (specifically z-expansion) if shooting close distance at 12 mm FF compared to closed distance at 16 mm FF (reason real estate agents use UWA). And IMHO, to get best of UWA you have to get close.

I understand the comcept you're getting at, but it's a fact that the only thing that determines perspective is the distance from the camera to the subjects. Changing focal length does not change perspective.

What you're saying is that you seem to get 'deeper' perspective (aka extension distortion) with wide angle lenses, and 'shallower' perspective (aka compression distortion) with telephoto lenses. The reason that appears to be the case is that when you use a different focal length, you usually change the distance at which you take the shot. But, my point is that it's the change of distance that alters perspective. If you take a 24mm lens and an a 14mm lens, and shoot the same scene from the same location, the perspective will be exactly the same, but the angle of view will be wider with the 14mm lens. The perspective only changes when you move closer with the 14mm lens, to achieve the same framing as with the 24mm lens from further away. It's being closer that gives you the 'z-expansion', not the fact that you're using a wider focal length.

Granted, it's a somewhat technical distinction, but technicalities are important. Am I the only person who's bothered by a question like, "Which lens has more zoom, the 100mm prime or the 200mm prime?"

 

[pranav]

Neuro - You can't get 8mm(~12mm on FF) depth perspective with 16-35. I reiterate, even 1 mm extra is really huge on this side of focal length scale.

But actually, you can get the same 'depth perspective' from both lenses, since the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject. But obviously, you can't get as wide an AoV at 16mm on FF as 8mm on APS-C.

You can't get the same depth perspective (specifically z-expansion) if shooting close distance at 12 mm FF compared to closed distance at 16 mm FF (reason real estate agents use UWA). And IMHO, to get best of UWA you have to get close.

I understand the comcept you're getting at, but it's a fact that the only thing that determines perspective is the distance from the camera to the subjects. Changing focal length does not change perspective.

What you're saying is that you seem to get 'deeper' perspective (aka extension distortion) with wide angle lenses, and 'shallower' perspective (aka compression distortion) with telephoto lenses. The reason that appears to be the case is that when you use a different focal length, you usually change the distance at which you take the shot. But, my point is that it's the change of distance that alters perspective. If you take a 24mm lens and an a 14mm lens, and shoot the same scene from the same location, the perspective will be exactly the same, but the angle of view will be wider with the 14mm lens. The perspective only changes when you move closer with the 14mm lens, to achieve the same framing as with the 24mm lens from further away. It's being closer that gives you the 'z-expansion', not the fact that you're using a wider focal length.

Granted, it's a somewhat technical distinction, but technicalities are important. Am I the only person who's bothered by a question like, "Which lens has more zoom, the 100mm prime or the 200mm prime?"

I love minutest technicalities but here its more like dog chasing the tail from the other side. I just wanted OP to know that can't get the z-expansion of close distance shots at 12 mm (one of the most fun feature of the lens) with 16 mm lens, if that matters.

 

[ZiggeZakkarin]

Perhaps you have your Mark2 now.Congrats to a nice FF camera then. My comment here is not 100 persent to the subjekt but still.I use only Canon L-glass for my 5D mark3 but not wide angle. The Tokina 16-28mm is so very good on a full frame. IQ is tacksharp allover and colours so beautiful.
If Canon comes whith an 14-24mm FF thing may be different but for now The Tokina shines. And 16mm is very wide on an full frame.

 

[oscaroo]

Gday.

I might add, if only briefly, that sigma 8-16mm works on a FF. I've tried it on my 6d w/o any problem, and on my friend's 5dc and works' 5d2.

You get full coverage at 16mm. You get a tad of 'vignetting' at 13mm (marked on the lens as 14mm). Below that and you start seeing the small image circle. But! That said, if you crop it out a little you still get more in the picture at 8mm on a FF than 8mm on your crop sensor.

I have previously taken a few sample pics of the 8-16 on my 6d. Search for it in this forum.

Sell the 450d, keep the 8-16mm

 

[jonsjons]

Well, if you find yourself shooting at 8mm often with the 8-16, consider the full-frame equivalent of this lens: the Sigma 12-24. Since you have the 24-70, the 12-24 would fit nicely into your lineup.

There are two versions of the 12-24; version one is very good stopped down and remarkably has almost no distortion. Version two is sharper in the corners but has some barrel distortion.