an odd comparison...

ok..so you'll have to forgive me (well, you don't HAVE to, but I'd be much obliged...)

I am looking to expand into the good quality wide FL
and I was pretty close to pulling the trigger on the Zeiss 21 f 2.8
for the corner to corner clarity, and the FL on a crop is the closest to 35mm....

but then came the sigma 18-35 f1.8 (with USB dock) and it got me thinking.

Yes, we are comparing a MF vs AF
and two completely different price ranges
but there are some fantastic reviews of the 18-35, and the clarity is quite impressive
and it has a very usable (if not great) f1.8

the one thing that the zeiss has that the sigma doesn't (factual, that is) is the build quality and the FF ability
the one thing that the sigma has that the zeiss doesn't (factual, that is) is the zoom and the faster aperture...


and I was wondering if anyone out there has ever considered the comparison of these two lenses.

First of all what do you want to do with this lens?

Zeiss 21 is meant to be an UWA on ff, to be blunt all the extra clarity and sharpness you get will not be fully utilized on a crop sensor, so it's just going to be a waste.

Sigma for sure.

thanks for your vote.

I got to a point in my hobby where I want to experiment with some lenses. I was initially aiming for primes only - ZE21 or sig 35, 85 1.8 or 1.4 or 1.2 and 135 because of the speed factor and the prime factor and that I want to experiment.

And while I was toying with the idea of getting the 5d3 - I think it is less appealing right now to me than getting a set of nicer primes.

so then I saw the 18-35 results on this board and others as well as the reviews and was intrigued. So much so - that I am putting it up there with the S35 and the ZE21. I have never seen a comparison of the S35 vs the 18-35 at 35mm f1.8 but it would be interesting just for the knowledge...

anyway - that is my impetus. I don't really like the 24mm FL too much on a crop, nor a 50mm FL on a crop. Both seem - not enough or too much, so the Canon 24II isn't in the running at this stage of the game.

any other ideas?

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16550618
any other ideas?

Well what's your main subject with a 35mm FoV? Environmental portrait? General walkaround? Streets? Scapes?

kin2son wrote in post #16550648
Well what's your main subject with a 35mm FoV? Environmental portrait? General walkaround? Streets? Scapes?

hmmm. yes!?

As I said - experiment. All of that.
I think with environmental portrait more than others
numbertwo - streets

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16550650
hmmm. yes!?

As I said - experiment. All of that.
I think with environmental portrait more than others
numbertwo - streets

ok.

Portrait of posing model or family/kids? Can you live with MF only?

tbh I don't agree with the Zeiss 21 for your intended usage. The IQ difference between Zeiss 21 vs Sigma 18 - 35 is negligible on crop, and the Sigma is a third of the price of the Zeiss.

kin2son wrote in post #16550656
The IQ difference between Zeiss 21 vs Sigma 18 - 35 is negligible on crop.

That is intersting information for sure
and valuable! Now the outlay will be slightly cheaper!

Heya,

If shooting ultra wide, I rarely use autofocus. I use manual focus. Set to infinity. Fire away, I just run & gun with it. Once the focal length starts to creep longer, I go back to autofocus, because of the minimum focus distance and how infinity changes a bit.

I wouldn't even consider this a comparison. The Sigma is very well built, super aperture that is constant at 1.8, great focal ranges, and optics-wise, behaves like a prime instead of a zoom. With autofocus.

Very best,

MalVeauX - thanks for your input here too
If I understand you correctly - you are also for the 18-35 1.8
I think that between y'alls opinions here and the amazing set of examples here in the appropriate thread, I have what I am looking for.
And while it sounds all paranoid and stuff... I am still worried about the AFissues others have noted. I just have to gather my "guts" and just go buy it finally!
**
the 21 is still a very capable lens - and gorgeous to look at to boot - but I guess that right now it isn't a fit.

Heya,

Between the two, on a crop, I would go with the 18-35mm f1.8 Sigma. At least, I'd take the gamble. I've gambled Sigma in the past and had too many focus issues, so I sent mine back. I fooled with the USB dock and it was never perfect, so I gave up, and got an alternative that worked flawlessly. I've seen less issues reported with the 18-35, so hopefully it's not a big deal. But the 30mm and 35mm ARTs, man, those things just focus all over the place it seems. I have a hard time recommending Sigma, from my experience, but I know others have had positive experiences. The 18-35 is the wide lens for a crop user currently, without going `L glass from Canon that costs literally twice as much. If you want contrast, sharpness, etc. The 18-35 is the way to go.

Overall however, I would actually get two lenses honestly. The 18-35 is a huge lens, very big, very heavy. Personally I would rather have the 14mm f2.8 Rokinon/Samyang, and a 35mm F2 IS prime. Same cost for those two. But I've found I don't really like buying "crop only" lenses.

Very best,

18-35 is a beast, though, at 120mm long and over 800g. Weighs more than your 70-200. It Might not be that fun to lug around all day nor inconspicuous for street photography.

How about a 24mm f2.8 IS? Pretty dang sharp and works on FF as a wide if you upgrade to 5D later.

http://slrgear.com …t.php/product/1​495/cat/10

this highlights one of the biggest problems of not living next to a real photography store
I was not aware of the size of the lens. It's heavier than my 24-105. shorter and fatter but heavier. This matters specifically in regards to the real estate in the camera bag which I tote everywhere. Oooof. sometimes i forget the most basic things! the dimensions!
Well, I am still pretty excited about the range and the aperture and the IQ seen by many here....but I will take into account what was said here. Thanks for the insights.