C100: Buying a Sigma 18-35 as a partner for my Tokina 11-16

F

FcoParra

New member
Hi!

At this time I have a C100 with a Tokina 11-16, and now I want to buy a partner for my Tokina and I'm looking for the Sigma 18-35 ART. I think is the best option for my rig but I need some advice. Can anyone please share some thoughts about this?

In the future I want to buy the Canon 100mm Macro IS USM L for a complete range btw.

Thanks in advance :D!
 
complete ? what about the enormous gap between 35 and 100mm ?
Usually people tend to use 24-70 or 24-105 in between.

depends on what you're doing though. tell us more about your needs.
 
coutard said:
complete ? what about the enormous gap between 35 and 100mm ?
Usually people tend to use 24-70 or 24-105 in between.

depends on what you're doing though. tell us more about your needs.
Click to expand...

For the gap betweet 35 to 100 I'll buy a 50mm but at this time I don't really need it.

I'm director for web vídeos, digital advertising, advertising, video clips and documentary.
 
I have the Tokina 11-16, Sigma 18-35, and Canon 24-105. Works great for me.

My only complaint is that I'd like to be using a sharper lens than the Canon 24-105 a lot of the time (IS is nice to have, but I don't need it on a lot of my shots), so I may get a Canon 24-70 v. II at some point. I was hoping Sigma would come out with a 24-70 art lens (which was rumored to be an f/2), but that hasn't happened yet. Sigma's 24-105 is nice and sharp, but that the autofocus on the C100 only works wide open at f/4 has been a bit of a deal-breaker for me until they fix that via firmware like they did with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.

The Canon 17-120mm also looks nice, though a bit large and heavy for a lot of my work. I think I read somewhere that autofocus works on that lens, which would be pretty sweet, though it doesn't have IS.
 
Last edited:
FcoParra said:
For the gap betweet 35 to 100 I'll buy a 50mm but at this time I don't really need it.

I'm director for web vídeos, digital advertising, advertising, video clips and documentary.
Click to expand...

Since you are just looking for input, I would think that you would need a normal focal length zoom of some sort. I truly can't imagine being trying to shoot with just wide angle zooms and telephoto. It is so limiting.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I can imagine it...

Click to expand...

Allow me to rephrase- I can't imagine why anyone would limit themselves to just wide angle zooms if they were shooting "web vídeos, digital advertising, advertising, video clips and documentary". I guess if you had decided that wide angle was going to be your stylistic niche and potential clients had to be onboard with your artistic aesthetic or get lost, then it might make sense. I mean, I shot an episode of a web series entirely on the tokina 11-16 with 16mm only being used for CU's, but that was just me having fun. I personally can't imagine trying to shoot a documentary without a telephoto zoom, but that's just because it makes my life much easier.
 
I too think there is a big gap between 35 and 100. But I can't recommend enough the Sigma 18-35art. A fantastic lens. When I first got it, though I knew it had a limited range, I kind of regret buying it because it didn't go further than 35mm. But after a few months having it, I got to use it quite a lot. Still wish it was a 17-50 (or something similar) but the build and optical quality are so good that I kind of forgot about it. Did a 2 day shoot last week and used it for about 90% of the 30 shots that we had to do. I have a 11-16, Sigma 18-35, Canon 24-105 and 100-400...the lens I like the most is the 18-35. Build quality is quite a big step above my other lenses...and the focus ring is so well dampened. I also like the fact that it doesn't extend when zooming...I have a clip-on matte box so this help quite a bit. Did not use it much at 1.8 but 2 weeks ago I was shooting backstage during a concert (it was very dark). I had 2 choices...crank the ISO to 12 800 at F4 on my 24-105 or around 3200 at 1.8-2.0 with the 18-35. The footage came out lovely. I struggle a bit more with the shallow DOF but nothing to ruin the shots.

Really happy with this lens. My next lenses will probably be a 70-200 and a 24-70 2.8.
 
I don't have the Sigma 18-35, but it looks like an awesome lens. I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. :)

I have been using the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS on my Nikon D5300 for about 1 year. That was rated as the sharpest standard zoom on the D7100 by DxO.

It is a fantastic lens for the price. You can buy it on eBay for $320 as direct import from Japan. I purchased mine from WinTokyo. It arrived in 2 days in the US. Sigma has a 1 year international warranty. Or try to find it in the US for the $420-$469 range.


It isn't quite as good wide open, but it is excellent at 4.0 Although I shoit it wide open for stills for events at higher ISO a lot.

I also have the Canon 24-70 2.8 II, which is an absolutely beautiful lens.

The Canon 24-70 4.0 IS is supposed to be better than the 24-105, but not quite in the same class as the 24-70 2.8 II. You can get that in the low $600 range from time to time.
 
Last edited:
I use the 17-50 2.8 sigma on my C100 and it is fantastic combo. It's a perfect range and the OS is great. The focus ring has a short throw but you get used to it quickly.
 
I bought the Sigma 18-35mm yesterday and... The lens is awesome, the build quality is really great and the image quality is also amazing. I'm really impressed.


Now I need something like the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 (or a 50mm prime, maybe the Sigma ART?) and the 100mm 2.8 USM IS Macro. I'll wait a few months. I'm not a big fan of the Canon 70-200 btw.


And if you're thinking about buying the Sigma 18-35mm GO FOR IT!
 
FcoParra said:
I bought the Sigma 18-35mm yesterday and... The lens is awesome, the build quality is really great and the image quality is also amazing. I'm really impressed.


Now I need something like the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 (or a 50mm prime, maybe the Sigma ART?) and the 100mm 2.8 USM IS Macro. I'll wait a few months. I'm not a big fan of the Canon 70-200 btw.


And if you're thinking about buying the Sigma 18-35mm GO FOR IT!
Click to expand...
The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is one of my favorite lenses but I only use it when I'm on a tripod. I like the f4 version too if you want a lighter option. Sigma 50mm is fantastic!
 
The Sigma 17-50 2.8 mentioned above is indeed a great lens. Underrated, and I don't see it mentioned on this forum often. Very sharp, good OS, and great in most indoor low-light situations. In fact, I hardly ever use anything else indoors, except for my nifty fifty when I need the extreme DOF or lowlight sensitivity.

And you can find it for dirt cheap on ebay.
 
Last edited:
You've got you're wide end covered beautifully, now you need a normal close-up portrait lens and a telephoto. A 50mm prime is my suggestion, a must have. And then a tele like the 70-200 f4/2.8.

The choice will depend on your need for wide iris, I suggest getting a ''practically free'' 100$ Canon f1.8 STM and putting it through your shooting style to figure out if a 50mm is what you need, then if yes get the 50mm ART for ultimate sharpness wide open, this way you try before you invest and get to keep it as a backup, or maybe you'll even find it enough, it's very sharp 2.8.

And for the tele, I think a 100mm prime isn't your best choice as it's not long enough and very limiting as a prime tele, so I'd rent/borrow a 70-200mm and see if it completes your set (it will I promise) If you don't need 2.8 on your tele the 70-200 f4 is is much cheaper and just as good. And, if you want a tele beast and don't ''need'' 2.8, the new 100-400mm L IS is a game changer and taking lots of the 70-200mm customers who don't need 2.8. Look at it. A 100-400mm is 100x more versatile tele than a 100m prime. It works great as a macro as well.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
You've got you're wide end covered beautifully, now you need a normal close-up portrait lens and a telephoto. A 50mm prime is my suggestion, a must have. And then a tele like the 70-200 f4/2.8.

The choice will depend on your need for wide iris, I suggest getting a ''practically free'' 100$ Canon f1.8 STM and putting it through your shooting style to figure out if a 50mm is what you need, then if yes get the 50mm ART for ultimate sharpness wide open, this way you try before you invest and get to keep it as a backup, or maybe you'll even find it enough, it's very sharp 2.8.

And for the tele, I think a 100mm prime isn't your best choice as it's not long enough and very limiting as a prime tele, so I'd rent/borrow a 70-200mm and see if it completes your set (it will I promise) If you don't need 2.8 on your tele the 70-200 f4 is is much cheaper and just as good. And, if you want a tele beast and don't ''need'' 2.8, the new 100-400mm L IS is a game changer and taking lots of the 70-200mm customers who don't need 2.8. Look at it. A 100-400mm is 100x more versatile tele than a 100m prime. It works great as a macro as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice.


I was shooting with the 70-200 2.8 and the 100 2.8 Macro and I really loved the definition and sharpness of the 100mm. The 70-200 is really nice, but is very "telephoto" for my style, also is really heavy and bulky.
My first options for the mid range are the Canon 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma 50mm 1.4. In tele range I was initially looking for the Rokinon 85mm, but after the shooting with the Canon 100mm Macro it became my first option :D


Also, tomorrow I'll have a food/gastronomy shooting with the Sigma 18-35 and the Canon 100mm... Can't wait haha.


Thanks!
 
As someone else mentioned, I almost always use the Canon 70-200 2.8 II on a tripod, usually in lower light when I need the fast aperture.

I also have a Canon 70-200 4.0 non-IS for more general use. If I had to re-purchase it I would get the 4.0 IS version. The IS version runs in the $750+ range used, which is a pretty good price for the quality and functionality. The non-IS version is about $400+ used. It makes a nice pair iwth the Canon 17-40 4.0, which is also about $400+ used. It is pretty amazing to be able to cover that range, including full frame, for only $800+ for the 17-40 + 70-200. Throw in the $125 50 1.8 STM and the $125, 24 mm 2.8 pancake (crop only) and you have a pretty economical kit.
 
I just picked up a Tokina 12-28 recently and its working great. It's a nice useful range that has me using it more often than my old 11-16. Of course, it's only f4 but 2.8 on the 11-16 was on the softer side anyways. I don't miss it. The one touch autofocus is also quieter. The only downside is that it also has that Tokina push/pull manual focus system that I wish they'd dump. I also don't have the focus upgrade so don't know how well it would work with that.
 
40mm is gorgeous but 50mm is a boring focal length on Super35 and if you have 35mm you can live without 40mm I guess.

18-35mm, 50mm STM, 70-200mm II IS is a decent kit. I would know. :)

But I think 65mm is nice...

I dunno. 18-35mm is a GORGEOUS lens but 17-55mm IS and 24-105mm IS are PRACTICAL lenses as is either 24-70mm. Are you an artist or a business, man?
 
Just wondering for those who use the 18-35 (or any other EF-S lens, really)...

Do you use the EF-S shooting mode, or just the Peripheral Illumination setting?
 
FcoParra said:
Thanks for the advice.

and the 100 2.8 Macro and I really loved the definition and sharpness of the 100mm.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Then you should try the 135mm f/2 L. Nothing comes close in definition/sharpness and out of focus rendition. Best Canon optics I've ever shot. No macro or IS of the 100mm though, but just a fairly higher-end image and construction. Take a look at it if you're not specifically needing IS.

FcoParra said:
Canon 50mm 1.4
Click to expand...

Steer away clear. A newer 50mm f/1.8 STM is a better lens.

The 1.4 is one of Canons bad children, not even remotely comparable to the 50mm ART.

I suspect it'll be updated very soon, would never but it now at its cost.


jmlau said:
Do you use the EF-S shooting mode, or just the Peripheral Illumination setting?
Click to expand...

Neither. Never had coverage problem with the C cameras and EF-S lenses, even the 18-55mm. However If I really fear and dislike corner shading, I'd turn on both.

The Sigma 18-35mm is specially not an issue, it has a much larger image circle and covers even FF from 24-35mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top