Replaced 16-35 F4 IS with 2 discontinued UWA primes : Sigma 14 2.8 EX HSM & Tokina 17 3.5 ATX Pro

I sold my 16-35 f4L IS USM (the best Canon uwa zoom, next to the 16-35 f2.8 III) cause I love speciality primes, eventually I found the Canon too expensive for only 1 lens.
Only since the 16-35 F4L IS & F2.8 III the corners are sharp on the more expensive zooms.

For the same price I bought 2 hidden discontinued gems, I will compare them side by side.
-The Tokina accepts filters, is the lightest, very compact, great IQ and cheap prime ($250 secondhand)
-The Sigma is very rare, it accepts no filters (bulb type), 14mm extreme ultrawide, fast AF, great IQ and has some flare but not problematic ($480 secondhand), from f8 corners come close to the Nikon 14-24 (see picture below on the right).

I read many user reviews and tests, both have the best reviews qualitywise (I saw there also existed an old Tokina 14 2.8 with AF, but this one was from the pre-digital age, the Sigma is newer and better)

I use my UWA lens for abandoned houses, castles, and other buildings... mostly at f8-f11 on tripod in a bit dark conditions, so I won't use them wide open.
But also for modern architecture during the day it's great.

14mm vs 17mm can make a big difference in big spaces inside
http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/90023507

Tokina 17mm review : https://www.slrlounge.​com …enses-the-complete-guide/

Extreme or ultra-wides are very hard to find (affordable with AF & least distortion).
With this I want to show that it's not impossible to find an affordable 14mm-17mm prime with AF and sharp corners today if you check the discontinued secondhand gamma.
My friend uses the Samyang/Rokinon 14 2.8 but sometimes misses the AF.

For portraits I have different portrait primes too.
I love ultrawide photography, so possibly I'll keep them both, i'll see my personal testings

Below you see the comparison of the image borders of the Sigma 14 2.8 (100% crops with a Canon 5D at f/2.8 vs f/8)
The center is very sharp like most lenses, but the corners are important too.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

the tokina, which I owned way back when, is a dog. and the sigma..... you replaced one of the best UW zooms. man this has me scratching my head

Don't know about the tokens, but it Makes sense to me. I would rather a prime all day, don't care about the red ring. I have the sigma 14 and it is a super gem. Are far corners sharp? Not really shooting fast and Sharp enough stopped down, but overall for such a specialty prime it is killer value. I am prime biased, and the sigma delivers in speed and "feel". Also, 14 is so much wider than 17/16, it is just crazy nice and wide. I got mine to shoot in tight bathrooms for work, but I really wish I thought to use it more creatively. Here are some non chart shots with it:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/PP9n​vm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Pkqf​qt

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Q7ar​8u

I question the swap too but I myself had/sold the same UWA zoom 16-35 F4 IS and the 15-30 2.8 VC Tamron as well. Not sure what I'll end up replacing it with but the distortion on the 14mm rokinon sucks sometimes which is why I sold it too.

The sigma 14 I heard is pretty good but the Tokina is bad. I myself want to get the Laowa 12mm 2.8

The drawback is that the diesrortion for interior stuff is really hard to fix, and in fact, a lot of times I have to bail on getting lines right. I have not imported the profile to Lightroom, if someone has please let me know because it would help a lot as it is not the easiest distortion to deal with regarding lines.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/PhFa​PU

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/E82t​7E

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/PhFa​kN

Ya really the Canon 16-35 F4 is basically prime quality which is why most would question why you would of swapped but for the wider than 16 I could understand. For me the Rokinon 14mm is cheap... cheap... meaning you can have IT and the 16-35... but to sell the one and buy the two older lenses is kinda confusing.

found the zoom too expensive so bought two old primes for the same price. the expression "pretzel logic" comes to mind and i'm hearing steely dan in the background

If you read it again, he got both to test against each other and keep one, maybe both as he "loves UW", but I would think that is redundant.

He also said he likes speciality primes. 2.8 vs 4 and 2mm extra width on that end is sorta a lot more in reality than it may seem on paper. I would rather have the sigma 14 2.8 outright over the 16-35f4 straight up, it is just a better lens for my purposes. A prime with speciality prime benefits and money left over for X instead of a lot of money tied up in a zoom that he really uses only wide end (Said he loves WA photography) and has zoom drawbacks (Speed and not as wide if he chooses the sigma) I think was his point. It is not pretzel logic if you try to understand where he is coming from.

Yes 2mm makes a big difference in UWA photography, we photograph interior of abandoned houses, castles,... and now we even have to stand against the walls with our tripods with the 16-35L's

Agreed that a zoom is more convenient, and that the 16-35 is perfectly sharp, but i'm nothing with that small zoomrange up till only 35mm.
Last weekend I was in a castle in France with my 24-70 2.8 zoom and only 70mm was good enough to have close-ups of the paintings above the doors.

Yes i'm going to test both side by side to see if the bulb form of the 14mm doesn't disturb too much flare-wise.
On the other hand I had some pics with flare too with my 24-70 lens of light falling in from a doorwindow, it all depends your position.

For the moment I'll keep the Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro as it's sharp, compact, cheap (and filters possible in comparison with the Sigma 14 2.8 EX)
I'm not a landscape photographer, so i'm not sure yet if i'll sell or keep this Tokina for the few times I use filters on a wide lens.
But having such a great price/quality out of production gem is tempting to keep as it costed only $250, i'll see...

The Sigma 14 2.8 EX HSM is a BIG GEM indeed!
Just received my parcel today, secondhand from a store in Germany, the build quality is very professionally, no plastic and the lens has no scratches, just like brand new!
It dates from around 2013 and is just like new, great new toys for the year ending, just made a test snapshot of my livingroom at 14mm and everything is in the picture, just great.

Yes a lot of people use convenient zooms, who knows a 14-70 will be made with prime-quality in future instead of the 16-35 short zooms.
But today the speciality primes got that someting extra, wider/faster/lighter/m​ore compact, they are just more sexy

A dog like your profile picture
I had this Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro in past and I was very satified with the sharpness/compact/ligh​tweight, sometimes a bit CA but for the rest no problems at all.
I sold it for this 16-35L f4L IS, but later I realised I didn't really need the zoom and for the same price I was better off with a 14 2.8 EX USM.

Question : why do you have a 14 II L & 16-35 f4L together ?
I would sell the 16-35 f4L immediately seen the very small zoomrange...
Why would you need to zoom between 17-35mm, for such small range you can take easilly crops without quality loss...

ed rader wrote in post #18225354
the tokina, which I owned way back when, is a dog. and the sigma..... you replaced one of the best UW zooms. man this has me scratching my head

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18227796
A dog like your profile picture
I had this Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro in past and I was very satified with the sharpness/compact/ligh​tweight, sometimes a bit CA but for the rest no problems at all.
I sold it for this 16-35L f4L IS, but later I realised I didn't really need the zoom and for the same price I was better off with a 14 2.8 EX USM.

Question : why do you have a 14 II L & 16-35 f4L together ?
I would sell the 16-35 f4L immediately seen the very small zoomrange...
Why would you need to zoom between 17-35mm, for such small range you can take easilly crops without quality loss...

First you say that 2mm extra wideness is a LOT in the UWA world and next you say the difference from 16-35 is just too small.
I don't really get it.

Do what you want to do ofcourse. I personally like my 16-35. It is a really great allrounder. I shot my best landscapes with that lens and even one of my favorite portraits is shot with it.

Both, 2mm wider is more interesting & I didn't need the 16-35mm limited zoomrange.
For your landscape photography space is offcourse no problem, inside buildings 2mm difference on the wide makes a big difference.
The 16-35 f4L was my best UWA zoom ever, I used it at f8, I can as wel use my 14 2.8 @ f2.8 for half the price & 2mm wider...

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18228001
Both, 2mm wider is more interesting & I didn't need the 16-35mm limited zoomrange.
For your landscape photography space is offcourse no problem, inside buildings 2mm difference on the wide makes a big difference.
The 16-35 f4L was my best UWA zoom ever, I used it at f8, I can as wel use my 14 2.8 @ f2.8 for half the price & 2mm wider...

To most like myself, the perspective of a landscape can entirely change depending on the focal length. 16 is ultra wide, 35 is just wide. To say that isn't a large enough is simply an incorrect statement. Might not be for you but doesn't mean it isn't for many others.

It also makes for a good walkaround lens in tight quarters. People love the perspective of 35mm for street and having IS plus the option to go wider comes in very handy.

Like others have pointed out, you seem to continuously justify your own purchase which sounds like is great for your needs and seeking approval from others on your setup isn't going to somehow make it better for you.

It sounds like its working out great for you, enjoy using it. Trust me when I say this, some people quit soon as the lens name starts with anything other than Canon.

Enjoy your new setup in good health.