Sharpest? Sigma 18-35 VS Canon 16-35 f/4 IS

I want to know which lens is sharper / has better IQ in general. I am looking for a landscape lens on a crop body.

From TDP it looks like with both at F/4, the Sigma is slightly sharper at the wide end but with more CA, and the Canon is slightly sharper at the long end. This is when both are on a crop body. For a crop body, I'd go with the Sigma as it's cheaper and opens up to 1.8. The Canon is a bit wasted on a crop body.

I already own the 18-35. I'm just dreading using the dock to calibrate it and I keep hearing rave reviews about the new 16-35 f/4 IS. That, and it's wider, weather sealed and I can keep it if/when I go FF. Perhaps I should calibrate the 18-35 and give it a chance first. Was just hoping for some feedback. Thank you for commenting

I'm not sure the benefits to the 16-35 f/4L will be fully realized until you go full-frame.

I have the 16-35, had the Sigma 18-35, and have a 7D & 6D. Sold the 18-35 when I got the 6D. My experience has been that the 16-35 is an incredible lens, but so was the 18-35 on a crop body. I think I'd try the calibration thing if it needs it, and decide from there.

For Landscape work on a crop, you might also want to consider the Canon 15-85, especially if you think you'll stick with the crop sensor for awhile.

gocolts wrote in post #17082091
I'm not sure the benefits to the 16-35 f/4L will be fully realized until you go full-frame.

I have the 16-35, had the Sigma 18-35, and have a 7D & 6D. Sold the 18-35 when I got the 6D. My experience has been that the 16-35 is an incredible lens, but so was the 18-35 on a crop body. I think I'd try the calibration thing if it needs it, and decide from there.

For Landscape work on a crop, you might also want to consider the Canon 15-85, especially if you think you'll stick with the crop sensor for awhile.

Thanks for the input. I appreciate it

Everything is sharper on full frame. If you are hung up on sharpness. Move to FF!

I'm astonished at the 100% crops that I get on my FF. I mean wow.

Talley wrote in post #17083603
Everything is sharper on full frame. If you are hung up on sharpness. Move to FF!

I'm astonished at the 100% crops that I get on my FF. I mean wow.

good advice!

FF and crop are just different and each has its merits.
For these two lenses, though, the 18-35 would make more sense if you shoot indoors and do not plan on going to FF or shoot movies.

The 16-35 F4 IS would be more suited to FF camera's. You're paying top dollar to get the 16mm at very high resolution. Although, if you plan on going full frame at some point or shoot movies, it's a good alternative.

However, if you want to stay with a crop camera and need IS, there is also the popular Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.

(I personally shoot both crop and full frame, and am astonished at the 100% crops from both camera's . I have to say I love shooting with prime lenses. Sharpness isn't the first reason to go full frame in my opinion)

The 18-35 is a great lens, and very well suited for portraits on a crop (as it covers the 35 and 50mm 'full frame' equivalent focal lengths). The large maximum aperture also allows for some subject separation (from the background).

I'd wonder if it were a little too long at the wide end for landscape use (even a few mm makes a difference for wide angle shots). Also, the IS on the 16-35 could be useful for occasions where you don't have a tripod.

I'd normally say that going for an EF lens on a crop body means you're paying a size and weight penalty for glass that covers a larger sensor area than you need; but in this case the large aperture of the 18-35 means that the size difference is moot, and the 16-35 is a fair bit lighter.

Ignoring the cost difference then, for purely landscape use, I'd be tempted to go for the Canon 16-35, as the lighter weight and IS are probably more useful than the 18-35's wide aperture. For portrait use I'd definitely go for the 18-35.

raptor3x wrote in post #17081782
From TDP it looks like with both at F/4, the Sigma is slightly sharper at the wide end but with more CA, and the Canon is slightly sharper at the long end. This is when both are on a crop body. For a crop body, I'd go with the Sigma as it's cheaper and opens up to 1.8. The Canon is a bit wasted on a crop body.

This

Aressem wrote in post #17081883
I'm just dreading using the dock to calibrate it ... Perhaps I should calibrate the 18-35 and give it a chance first.

Are you actually having problems with the lens now? Is it back focusing or front focusing? Or are you just thinking that its a requirement out of the box with every lens to have to AFMA?

FEChariot wrote in post #17084293
Are you actually having problems with the lens now? Is it back focusing or front focusing? Or are you just thinking that its a requirement out of the box with every lens to have to AFMA?

It's front focusing terribly. I will calibrate it this Sunday and let you guys know how everything pans out.

Aressem wrote in post #17084317
It's front focusing terribly. I will calibrate it this Sunday and let you guys know how everything pans out.

I'd calibrate first it at least before trying other options like buying a 16-35 IS. I could understand you wanting to cut your losses before sending it to Sigma though.

I'd go for Canon.

sigma is probably sharper and SIGNIFICANTLY faster, but if you want FF compatibility, the canon version is so damn good. Along with a 70-200, I can get by with landscapes just fine. It's all I would ever *need*.