Which starter lens would you recommend? Canon 16-35 2.8 or Sigma 18-35 1.8

[johnflowermarcus]

I have my eyes on the Canon 16-35 2.8 for my T3i but I'm not sure I can justify the price over something like the Sigma 18-35 1.8. Looking for input on how they might compare? Has anyone shot with both of these lenses? Is the Canon worth the bump in price?

 

[Darren Levine]

consider that you can buy additional lenses along with the 18-35 for the same price as the canon.

you could get the 18-35 with the tamron 24-70 for 100 bucks more than just the canon alone, and have an 18-70 range.

if you're not dead set on either of those lenses, consider something more versatile for your first lens, such as the canon 17-50

 

[R Hudson]

Or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and another lens or two in addition.

 

[Samuel H]

unless you know you're going to move to full frame really soon, the canon 16-35 makes no sense (I think). The tamron is a lot cheaper, the sigma is a lot better.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[ianm]

In case you are still contemplating between the two, I have shot video with both of these lenses.

I've had my Canon 60D for over half a year, and used it with the 50mm 1.8 for the first two months before purchasing another lens. I was debating between the exact two you currently are. I have a friend who owns the 16-35 2.8 and loves it for video, so he let me try it out. I ended up getting the Sigma 18-35 1.8 for several reasons:

My specific use would be shooting video in low light scenarios
-the Sigma has an equivalent TStop of 1.8 while the Canon's equivalent is 3.2/3.3 depending on the camera (meaning the Sigma allows nearly 4x as much light to reach the sensor)
Build Quality
-Although the Sigma is not weather sealed like the Canon, it is still a solidly built lens with very smooth focus and zoom rings, but keep in mind it is heavier than many others.
Sharpness
-Samuel H provided a great link comparing the two.
Price
-That's obvious

The only reason I found myself still wanting the Canon 16-35 was if I ever thought I might switch to FF, which was not in my plans. Otherwise, if this is the focal range you are looking for, you will not be disappointed with the Sigma 18-35. Hope this helps!

 

[Samuel H]

WOW, I didn't know the sigma was T/1.8 from f/1.8. Very impressive. There must be some very advanced coatings on those glass elements.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM

 

[Erik Naso]

Sigma 18-35 is a great lens. Nothing bests it for speed in a wide zoom at 1.8 through the full zoom range. 35mm-equivalent focal length range of 28.8-56mm. The 16-35 on a APS-C camera (70D 60D 7D) equivalent focal length is 25.6-52.50mm. A little longer and wider than the Sigma

Tokina 11-16 is also great. Both of these are for APS-C so you get the full wide field of view equivalent to a 17.6-25.6 mm full frame 35mm.

Add in a Rokinon 35mm and 85mm Cine and you have a nice set.

Save up some cash and get the Canon 70-200 IS 2.8L. Best lens Canon makes.

I have all these lenses and I'm very happy with them on my 70D, C100 and C300.

At work they have the Canon 16-35 and yes it is a really nice lens that I hardly use, so if money is tight or you want to get more for your cash the other options are probably better.