Sigma 20mm ART vs. Nikon 16-35mm: I'm trying to decide between the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART lens and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4. I do a lot of landscape photography and would like to get a nice...

jcwall396 Loc: Roswell, GA

I'm trying to decide between the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART lens and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4. I do a lot of landscape photography and would like to get a nice wide-angle lens, but can't decide which on to get. The Sigma provides better low-light performance, but the Nikon provides a little more flexibility in terms of zoom. Have any of you hoggers used either / both of these lenses, and what are your thoughts? Thanks for your input!

Rob Almeda Loc: Gaithersburg, Maryland

I have the Nikon 16-35 and I am completely satisfied with the IQ of the lens. It has flexibility due to the zooms. I have not used the Sigma 20mm but it will limit your focusing distance. The 16-35 is an excellent lens for landscape photography and you will not regret if you get one. Good luck on your choice.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I have the 16-35 r4, and am pleased with it. I have not used the Sigma.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

jcwall396 wrote:

I'm trying to decide between the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART lens and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4. I do a lot of landscape photography and would like to get a nice wide-angle lens, but can't decide which on to get. The Sigma provides better low-light performance, but the Nikon provides a little more flexibility in terms of zoom. Have any of you hoggers used either / both of these lenses, and what are your thoughts? Thanks for your input!

I used the Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR lens for years, but I sold it for the Tamron 15-30mm F2.8 VC, the increase in image sharpness is amazing!

I do have the Sigma 20mm F1.4 ART lens and it is an absolutely fantastic lens if you are looking for a super fast, super sharp prime. It is in my case right next to the Tamron VC Stabilized Prime trio, 35mm F1.8, 45mm F1.8, and 85mm F1.8. They are all more than worth their asking price. Primes are fun so long as you can compose with your feet, otherwise, good zooms are a better choice most of the time.

jcwall396 Loc: Roswell, GA

MT Shooter wrote:

I used the Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR lens for years, but... (show quote)

I hadn't even thought about the Tamron lens, but just checked it out on B&H and wow! Great reviews, plus a little more wide angle and faster than the Nikon. Thanks for the tip - now I'm really having a GAS attack . . .

wolfman

jcwall396 wrote:

I hadn't even thought about the Tamron lens, but just checked it out on B&H and wow! Great reviews, plus a little more wide angle and faster than the Nikon. Thanks for the tip - now I'm really having a GAS attack . . .

I have the 16-35 and I am very pleased with the IQ. If you use filters, you will need a special filter holder for the 15-30.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Sigma ART lenses are unbelievable in low light situations. Personally, any lower than 20 mm and you'r egoing to get fisheye like distortion. Also, look at the Sigma 24 mm ART f/1.4

EZsh00ter Loc: Ottawa, On. Canada

I had the nikkor 16-35 f4 for 3years, but sold it to get the Tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC, as it is sharper, and has much less distortion in the wide range. Plus its faster, and the VC is a 4stop, while the nikkor VR is about 2 stops. i got the Tamron at Amazon for less than the price I paid for the Nikkor 16-35. The tamron outperforms the Nikon. If I were to buy a 20mm, i would go for the nikkor 20mm f1.8. i have a large print from the Tamron at 15mmF2.8 and it is sharp through out the frame! I could not be more impressed!! It is just a little heavier than the 16-35, so i didn't hesitate to get it after reading reviews on it.
My 2 cents.
Cheers, Eric

MtnMan Loc: ID

Rob Almeda wrote:

I have the Nikon 16-35 and I am completely satisfied with the IQ of the lens. It has flexibility due to the zooms. I have not used the Sigma 20mm but it will limit your focusing distance. The 16-35 is an excellent lens for landscape photography and you will not regret if you get one. Good luck on your choice.

What he said. Plus note that the 16-35 has filter threads. Landscape often benefits from a CP. And the 16-35 has very good VR. Since you want low ISO (<200) and high f-stop (> f16) for Landscape VR means you needn't always lug a tripod.

MtnMan Loc: ID

EZsh00ter wrote:

I had the nikkor 16-35 f4 for 3years, but sold it ... (show quote)

I believe the VR on the recent version of the 16-35 is claimed as four stops.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-16-35-2p8-vr-n15

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

OK, stupid reply, but here goes! That depends. I have neither lens, but I know about both, in general terms. Sigma has been making some wonderful glass in their ART line lately, such as their 50 which I do own. For me, personally, I would take the zoom as it has a great reputation and I use a zoom at that end, the 14-24. Although I do own a fixed 20/2.8, I haven't used it since getting the zoom. This is one choice where you will be second guessing yourself for a while, and whatever you choose, you'll convince yourself you should have bought the other. Obviously there is only one solution -- buy both! If I could only have one, it would be the zoom as it would be more versatile. YMMV.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If your interest is in landscape photography you will be better served by the 16-35 f4. Not many photographers in the landscape business need a fast aperture.
You did not mention which camera is going to be used with the lens you have in mind but if it is a full frame the 12-24 f4 AFS DX lens by Nikon will allow you to use the lens between 16-24mm because that is what I have been doing with mine and the D610. I have never used a 16-35 f4 but if money is an issue I would investigate the price of the 12-24 DX lens. You will not be disappointed.
This shot was made in Miami Beach in an early evening in August at the Lincoln Mall. It was made with my D610 and the 12-24 f4 lens set at 16mm. As you can see, the lens is super sharp.

(Download)

SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

I have the Nikon 16 to 35 and am completely satisfied since I shoot 90% landscape shots. The great range up to 35mm is important to me. For landscape the Sigma 20/1.4 is not going to be used much at 1.4, and although it is probably a very sharpe lens save your money and buy a 20/1.8 lens. I have heard that the Tamron 15 to 30 is very sharp but very heavy.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

I love my 16-35 and use it all the time. It is sharp, the VR is very useful, and I like that it easily accepts screw on 77mm filters. I haven't used the Sigma but I do have the Nikon 20mm f1.8. I also shoot mostly landscapes and probably take 50 shots with the 16-35 for every one with the 20mm. The zoom focal range of the 16-35 is much more useful in landscape photography than the faster speed of the 20mm. And the extra 4mm at the wide end also helps. You can't always use your feet to change what's in your shot. Both lenses are useful, but if $$$ dictate only one, then then best choice is by far the 16-35.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

jcwall396 wrote:

I'm trying to decide between the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 ART lens and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4. I do a lot of landscape photography and would like to get a nice wide-angle lens, but can't decide which on to get. The Sigma provides better low-light performance, but the Nikon provides a little more flexibility in terms of zoom. Have any of you hoggers used either / both of these lenses, and what are your thoughts? Thanks for your input!

-----

You should also consider the Nikkor 18-35G lens. It is sharper than the very good 16-36, has much less distortion, is about ½ the size and weight, and is half the price. Check out DXOmark to verify these claims. It is not a VR lens but, in general, you don't really need that feature with wide angle lenses.

-----