Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 art lens: Presently I work with a Canon R6 and do a lot of landscapes and some architecture. I am wondering if anyone here has used a Sigma 14-24 with the R6 and...

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Presently I work with a Canon R6 and do a lot of landscapes and some architecture. I am wondering if anyone here has used a Sigma 14-24 with the R6 and what their results were? It seems the perfect lens for both.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

josquin1 wrote:

Presently I work with a Canon R6 and do a lot of landscapes and some architecture. I am wondering if anyone here has used a Sigma 14-24 with the R6 and what their results were? It seems the perfect lens for both.

When I was shopping for fast UWA zooms a few years ago, I looked at the Sigma 14-24mm ART along with the native lenses for my camera brand. One thing I learned is that Sigma's designers are not given a weight target when creating ART lenses. As a result, they are almost always the heaviest option for any focal length/aperture combination. Keep this in mind if weight is important to you.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

josquin1 wrote:

Presently I work with a Canon R6 and do a lot of landscapes and some architecture. I am wondering if anyone here has used a Sigma 14-24 with the R6 and what their results were? It seems the perfect lens for both.

It's a great lens but..... I have it and it is a beast, very large and heavy. It has it's pluses and minuses, it is a good lens but I am not so sure that it performs any better than the Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS, in comparing the two lenses the Canon has IS so on your R6 you can shoot fast moving water handheld and get that silky effect, probably not with the Sigma, you can buy a ND filter conversion kit for the Sigma for about $135 which comes with 4 different ND filters, I have that and it allows me to install ND filters at the rear of the lens and it saves me the expense of purchasing a large 150mm drop in filter system, I also have Canon's adapter with a polarizer so I am set for streams and waterfalls, I still can't use graduated filters without the purchase of the 150mm system. The Canon 16-35 not only has IS but it will also use 77mm screw in filters, something that you may want to consider. Or, for a bit more money you could go with the RF 15-35, that should be better than either of the two lenses I have discussed here.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Blurryeyed wrote:

It's a great lens but..... I have it and it is a ... (show quote)

Thanks for your response. Yes those are the 2 big disadvantages, weight and filters. I think I'll probably rent it 1st to see how I can cope with those. Being 73 could become an issue for me.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

josquin1 wrote:

Thanks for your response. Yes those are the 2 big disadvantages, weight and filters. I think I'll probably rent it 1st to see how I can cope with those. Being 73 could become an issue for me.

You may want to consider the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, a light weight lens with excellent image quality and it is $100 less than the Sigma. If you are into landscapes there is no need for an f/2.8 lens, you are probably shooting somewhere between f/8 and f/22 on most of your shots.

jayluber Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I use my Sigma Art 14-24 on a Canon 5D and love it for MW shots and it's tack sharp from corner to corner. Weighs a ton. Not sure how it would work on R6 but it's my go to lens for wide angle.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

ALL of my Sigma ART lenses are wonderful, heavy and expensive. Best of luck.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

cjc2 wrote:

ALL of my Sigma ART lenses are wonderful, heavy and expensive. Best of luck.

Thanks. Will probably rent one to see how I can manage it.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

jayluber wrote:

I use my Sigma Art 14-24 on a Canon 5D and love it for MW shots and it's tack sharp from corner to corner. Weighs a ton. Not sure how it would work on R6 but it's my go to lens for wide angle.

That's what makes it so tempting as 5dIV users really like it. I had the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and I could handle that one pretty easily.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

jayluber wrote:

I use my Sigma Art 14-24 on a Canon 5D and love it for MW shots and it's tack sharp from corner to corner. Weighs a ton. Not sure how it would work on R6 but it's my go to lens for wide angle.

Thanks . I'll probably rent one and then the Canon 15-35mm f4 to see how they compare.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

larryepage wrote:

When I was shopping for fast UWA zooms a few years ago, I looked at the Sigma 14-24mm ART along with the native lenses for my camera brand. One thing I learned is that Sigma's designers are not given a weight target when creating ART lenses. As a result, they are almost always the heaviest option for any focal length/aperture combination. Keep this in mind if weight is important to you.

Thanks for your response. I'll rent one and see how I can handle the weight.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

josquin1 wrote:

That's what makes it so tempting as 5dIV users really like it. I had the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and I could handle that one pretty easily.

There is a big difference between the 50/1.4 and the 14-24, I have both lenses and there is no comparison in the weight, if he is 74 I would highly recommend the 16-35 f/4L quite a bit lighter and I used it on the two images below with a Canon R which did not have in body image stabilization, I tried to hold the camera still on a rock but even so there was still a bit of shake.

(Download)

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Blurryeyed wrote:

There is a big difference between the 50/1.4 and the 14-24, I have both lenses and there is no comparison in the weight, if he is 74 I would highly recommend the 16-35 f/4L quite a bit lighter and I used it on the two images below with a Canon R which did not have in body image stabilization, I tried to hold the camera still on a rock but even so there was still a bit of shake.

Thanks I'm listening very carefully to all of the advice. One concern for the Canon is that it is 2mm narrower and that might be a concern.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

josquin1 wrote:

Thanks I'm listening very carefully to all of the advice. One concern for the Canon is that it is 2mm narrower and that might be a concern.

16mm is pretty wide, 2mm just means you may have to step back a foot or so, if you are shooting real estate professionally that may be an issue but really I think that most pros even with real estate don't go that wide, they find other ways to show a homes features. I hate to even admit this but I have 3 ultra wides, the Sigma 12-24 DG II, the Sigma 14-24 Art, and the Canon 16-35 f/4 IS, they are all great, but the 14-24 is heavy, I don't know how you are planning on using it but if there is much hiking at all to get your landscape shots that weight will be an issue, your camera will probably either be in a bag or strapped around your neck, either way it will become uncomfortable pretty quickly.

2 1/2 pounds vs 1 1/3 pounds plus you camera weight, that may not sound like much but it just may be more than you think.

josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts

Blurryeyed wrote:

16mm is pretty wide, 2mm just means you may have t... (show quote)

Excellent advice esp about stepping back. The weight issue seems to be of paramount importance esp since I'm 73 and 74 is just around the corner. Healthy but not in the greatest shape. Hopefully Canon is still making it as it is on backorder at B&H.