Sigma 18-35 vs Canon 16-35 f4 on A7s

K

kymira

Member
I already have the 18-35 and I love how fast it is but with the low light beast the A7s is, I feel Ive barely taken advantage of it. I also hate the fact that on FF mode Im only limited to 35mm without any vignetting.

I'm thinking of selling it for a 16-35 f4 is.

I think I would appreciate the image stabilization since I hate lugging around a tripod unless I really have to. But on the flip-side since I don't have a lighting setup yet the 1.8 might get me out of those rare tough situation if/when they arrive.


What would you guys do?
 
f/4 on APS-C is kind of limiting, but, then again, you have an a7S, so you could use the 16-35 on FF mode, which is a completely different game.

Check this, and this (in that second comparison, both options would give you approximately the same FoV and DoF)
 
Samuel H said:
f/4 on APS-C is kind of limiting, but, then again, you have an a7S, so you could use the 16-35 on FF mode, which is a completely different game.

Check this, and this (in that second comparison, both options would give you approximately the same FoV and DoF)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comparison Sam. I would probably have it on FF mode most of the time. But you're right Id have both options if need be.

joey101010 said:
why not get a 24-70 2.8, nearly same as 18-35 1.8 in FF mode and an extra ~20mm on long end.
Click to expand...

Ive considered the 24-70 2.8 but Id prefer to have I.S. for handheld shots I find myself doing more & more of now.



*Im even considering a 24-105 right now. Ive come across one locally for $500 (CAD), just mulling over it. But it would be nice to have this paired with a 16-35.
 
Samuel H said:
If you're considering the 24-70 or 24-105, check this: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests

And in any case: any particular reason for you to be looking only at Canon mount zooms? There are very nice E-mount lenses, and there are very nice primes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Article Sam. The 24-70 f4 seems to be a good middle ground in terms of sharpness between the way more expensive 2.8 mk2. Also Im digging that macro feature, seems to have a shorter min focus distance than the 24-105.

The reason I'll probably peruse the canon route is basically because the affordability and availability of them in my local used market. I also already have a couple Canon EF primes (and adapters), So a nice walk around zoom that covers a few focal ranges would be a nice change.

As far as FE Lenses, They all perform remarkably from tests and reviews Ive seen but they're a bit too expensive for me atm. I do plan to eventually own at least one or two native glass just for the convenience of AF and size/portability. Im really liking that 55 1.8 or even that dreamy 85 Batis.



Beeboop said:
What do you mean only 20mm extra long?
Click to expand...

I think Sam means that the 18-35 (in crop mode = 27mm-52ish) is only 20mm longer than a 24-70.
 
Last edited:
Keep the Sigma 18-35 and use it on 35mm. Then also buy the Sigma 24mm f1.4 art. Low light shallow DOF ftw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top