djlouden Loc: Ocala, Florida

I'm in the market for a new wide angle to use primarily on my Canon 5D MK III (full frame). Since I have a 24-105, I'm not sure the 16-35 offers enough of an improvement to my views. The Sigma 12-24 is a possibility. Any thoughts for a super wide for a full frame?

Happy shooting

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

At first blush, I think the Sigma fills better the void at half the cost of the Canon 16-35 2.8. Is it the wide angle that is important or do you need a large apeture as well? The L lens is a fine piece of glass, but Sigma makes nice equipment for the cost.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Check photozone.de. The Canon 16-35 4 is definitely superior optically, but the Sigma may be good enough for you and offers a much wider field of view.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Check photozone.de. The Canon 16-35 4 is definitely superior optically, but the Sigma may be good enough for you and offers a much wider field of view.

djlouden Loc: Ocala, Florida

Thanks for the reply. I don't need the larger aperture as generally for landscapes I'd shoot a smaller opening anyway.



Thanks. My real issue is indeed field of view for an upcoming Grand Canyon trip. (Of course you can never get it all anyway) I've always stayed with Canon lenses but I don't see enough of a difference in the 16MM from my 24-105.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Then go with the Sigma. It is way wider. and you have the rest covered.

DBaltzer Loc: Scottsdale, Arizona

i use the 16-35 f2.8 at least 90% of the time on my MKIII when shooting landscapes. I find it hard to believe that you're not seeing the significant difference between 16 and 24. My experience is that when I looked at lenses wider than 16mm, the fisheye effect/distortion became very distracting. It is a pricy lens but your hanging it on a pricey camera. And at f11 and up, the DOF and sharpness is incredible.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Hi djLouden

Go look at the specs. For the two lenses, the quality of the Canon is superior than the sig.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Sigma is the widest non-fisheye lens available, bar none. That comes with all sorts of extreme wide angle distortion effects that are almost unavoidable.

The Canon is better corrected, with less inherent wide angle distortion effects, and still ultra wide at 16mm.

You just have to ask yourself how wide is wide enough. (Personally, my widest on full frame is 20mm... while my widest on crop cameras is FF 16mm equivalent. For ultrawide views, I tend to use a less wide setting or lens and stitch together a panorama, to minimize wide angle distortion effects.)

Do you like to use filters? The Sigma has a protruding front element that won't allow standard filters to be attached. There are adapters available that allow rectangular filter systems to be used on it, though. The Sigma has a permanent/built-in "lens hood", such as it is. Figure an extra $150 to $250 for an adapter and a kit of commonly used rectangular filters, if you don't already have them.

The Canon lens uses standard 77mm screw-in filters (same as your 24-105mm & 100-400mm). As an L-series, the 16-35/4 comes with a matched, bayonet-mount lens hood.

The Canon lens has Image Stabilization. The Sigma doesn't. Personally I wouldn't consider IS a "must have" on an ultrawide lens... but, hey, it can't hurt!

By the way, there is a huge difference between 16mm and the 24mm you have now. At the ultra wide end of things, even a single millimeter difference in focal length is significant and noticeable. Of course, that means the 12mm possible with the Sigma offers an even greater difference.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

The wide angle distortion of the Sigma is easily corrected in PP. However, if you need the 12mm and are stuck with 16mm, that cannot be corrected.

Also, I am still not sure which 16-35 the OP was asking about. Is it the 4 or the 2.8?

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Befor buying the 14-24 FF Nikon, I used the Sigma 8-16 on DX, which has the same FOV as the 12-24 on FF. I almost always used it at 8mm. On the 12-24 you've got 16mm if you want it, and significantly wider options besides, which I can guarantee you will be happy to have.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

DJ, I have not used a 12mm but can only imagine the distortion it will give you. Also the really wides will give you HUGE amounts of sky that needs to be cropped off leaving you with very tiny detail.
Yes, it's a lot more work than just snapping a shot but you may be better served by using what you have and shooting panos in portrait orientation. But as I said, it's actually time consuming work. Good luck
SS

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

I had the 16-35/2.8L lens and ended up selling as I didn't use at all. I had the 12-24 Sigma which, until recently, was the widest non fisheye lens for Canon full frame. Great lens but so wide I had to be careful not to get my feet in the pictures. Super solid build, very good quality. Depends on how you want to use, but both are very good lenses. The 16-35/4 lens is very new and has super reviews. More a matter of what zoom range you want.

djlouden Loc: Ocala, Florida

Thanks for all the comments and opinions. Just what I was looking for. I'm leaning towards the Canon 16-35 F4. I just hope that when I get out to the Grand Canyon and then the Rockies that I don't wish I had the wider option the Sigma would provide. I'm open to ideas and suggestions.

Since I live in an area devoid of any camera stores within a 2 hour driving range, I rely quite a bit on places like this for advice so keep those cards and letters coming.

Happy Shooting

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Huge amounts of sky only applies to flat landscapes with nothing in the foreground. Check these out, all shot with Sigma 8-16 @8mm, equivalent to the wide end of 12mm on FF

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)