Used 16-36l ver1 or sigma 18-35 1.8 on a 7d

Hi guys just curious I'm thinking of adding a wide angle lens to complement my 24-105. And my choices are the canon 16-35 ver1 or sigma's 18-35 1.8. I like the 18-35 bec of the 1.8 specially in church where I used to bump up my ISO. But heard that it has some front and back focusing problem. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes from time to time. Anyone has this lens that can share their inputs? Thank you.

18-35 no question. Faster, better IQ. Problems are overblown. Get the USB dock along with it if you're worried and that will fix any consistent front/back focus problems.

I have a 7d and use the 16-35 v1 a lot. The combination works great for me and I also do a bit of photography for our church. Everyone is going to say get the 17-55 for the 7d, I didn't want an EFS lens nor one that is a dust magnet.

Thanks guys still deliberating on the 2. And yes I eliminated 17-55 also due to the dust issue and being an efs, what draws me to the 18-35 even if only for crop sensor is that it's has an internal rotation so less to no dust. But the 16-35 haunts me for I may go full frame someday. Lol Dilemma of choosing a lens!!

My vote is for the 18-35.

Get what works best for you now. Sell and get what you need later - if you go the FF route.

i'd almost look at an UWA to pair with the 24-105mm...either that or the sigma...

angelIV wrote in post #16762147
Hi guys just curious I'm thinking of adding a wide angle lens to complement my 24-105. And my choices are the canon 16-35 ver1 or sigma's 18-35 1.8. I like the 18-35 bec of the 1.8 specially in church where I used to bump up my ISO. But heard that it has some front and back focusing problem. I shoot mostly portraits and some landscapes from time to time. Anyone has this lens that can share their inputs? Thank you.

Well, if you are planning to go full frame anytime soon than the obvious choice is the 16-35. But if you plan to stay on a crop, I'd vote in favor of the 18-35mm. Neither lens has IS (or in Sigma's case, OS) but the Sigma is 1 & 1/3 stops faster. The build of the Sigma is on par with any L lens, and although large and heavy, both focusing and zooming are internal. The Sigma costs half as much as the Canon and carries a four year warranty.

There are always potential AF issues with third party lenses, but on my 60D the Sigma seems to nail AF much more often than my trusty Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ever did. The issues with AF tend to revolve mostly around shooting small or low contrast subjects in low light. When it occurs, its more often at f/1.8 than at narrower apertures. When I occasionally run in a problem like that I can usually get sharp focus if I move the focal point to an area with more contast or a edge between a lighter and darker color. And if all else fails there is always Live View where the focus is dead on.

But beyond that, on a crop body the Sigma 18-35mm performs significantly better than the 16-35. Take a look at the numbers for sharpness, light transmission, and chromatic aberration. On a full frame body the 16-35mm may shine, but on crop its a difference story. The Sigma is much sharper! Here are the DxOMark results for each lens.

DxOMark ratings for Sigma 18-35mm on a 7D
http://www.dxomark.com …8-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon

DxOMark ratings for Canon 16-35mm on a 7D
http://www.dxomark.com …nted-on-Canon-EOS-7D__619

Wow!! That Tstop of 1.8 is phenomenal!!

1Tanker wrote in post #16762721
Wow!! That Tstop of 1.8 is phenomenal!!

Yes it is. From what I've seen It appears very uncommon for lenses, especially zooms, to have a Tstop equal to the widest aperture. Many of the better f/1.8 lenses have Tstops of around f/2 or even narrower. And those are primes! On a zoom it is as you said, phenomenal. The light transmission even equals or betters some f/1.4 primes. This sucker gathers a lot of light.

nice i think I'm going to keep my 7d for 2 yrs more, i usually upgrade after 3-4 years like my 50d or till the camera dies on me like my xti. i may go with the 18-35mm. thanks guys.

thanks again everyone.

I've owned both, and shot with both on APS-C cameras. The answer to your question, based on my experience is: Sigma 18-35

I would also suggest a look at the Tokina 16-28 f2.8. It's a very sharp full frame lens that I've been quite happy with. This lens had been priced very attractively and recently has dropped a bit more, making it an even better option.

Sgt, Mike wrote in post #16763700
I would also suggest a look at the Tokina 16-28 f2.8. It's a very sharp full frame lens that I've been quite happy with. This lens had been priced very attractively and recently has dropped a bit more, making it an even better option.

The optics of the Tokina are very good and even better then the Canon 16-35 on a crop body. The price seem extremely reasonable for what you get and it will work on FF bodies as well. I have no idea what the build is like. The range is more restricted though and it is a brick weighing in at 5 ounces more than the already heavy Sigma 18-35mm. But an interesting option nonetheless.

mwsilver wrote in post #16763828
The optics of the Tokina are very good and even better then the Canon 16-35 on a crop body. The price seem extremely reasonable for what you get and it will work on FF bodies as well. I have no idea what the build is like. The range is more restricted though and it is a brick weighing in at 5 ounces more than the already heavy Sigma 18-35mm. But an interesting option nonetheless.

As I said, I'm quite satisfied with my 16-28. Admittedly, the build isn't L class, but it is very well built and no doubt solid. When I picked mine up, it was more expensive, but still a very good value. I consider the lens a steal, at today's price. This truly is a first class lens.