What to buy for APS-C Canon? Sigma 30mm ART or Sigma 18-35mm ART?

Hi Fellas,

It's good to be back to POTN after a while.

I noticed the fresh look on the web too! excellent choice!

Ok, to cut the long story short, I have now sold my 24-105 f4 Canon and wanted to purchase new lens for my 7D.

Which of these 2 Sigma lenses would you recommend?

Image sharpness/crispiness?
Low light photography?
Colour intensity?

From my amateur perspective and my friend's opinion, prime lenses are usually a bit sharper compared to zoom lenses but I also heard that this Sigma 18-35 ART zoom lens is one of the exception. I heard a very good review out there on the web but wanted to hear directly from you guys.

I had the opportunity to experience Sigma 50mm f1.4, which I felt a bit too long for my liking. When I'm on the other end of a narrow table, I need to distance myself a bit before I can take a portrait shot of someone on the opposite side of table. Although, optical wise it is very sharp and crisp but f1.4 is very ... very bokeh .. .sometimes I think it's too bokeh.

I look forward to any input and suggestions. Thanks!

kakegawa wrote in post #17458981
Hi Fellas,

It's good to be back to POTN after a while.

I noticed the fresh look on the web too! excellent choice!

Ok, to cut the long story short, I have now sold my 24-105 f4 Canon and wanted to purchase new lens for my 7D.

Which of these 2 Sigma lenses would you recommend?

Image sharpness/crispiness?
Low light photography?
Colour intensity?

From my amateur perspective and my friend's opinion, prime lenses are usually a bit sharper compared to zoom lenses but I also heard that this Sigma 18-35 ART zoom lens is one of the exception. I heard a very good review out there on the web but wanted to hear directly from you guys.

I had the opportunity to experience Sigma 50mm f1.4, which I felt a bit too long for my liking. When I'm on the other end of a narrow table, I need to distance myself a bit before I can take a portrait shot of someone on the opposite side of table. Although, optical wise it is very sharp and crisp but f1.4 is very ... very bokeh .. .sometimes I think it's too bokeh.

I look forward to any input and suggestions. Thanks!

It's pretty simple, if you plan to stay with crop camera in the forseeable future, get the simgae 1-35.
Otherwise I would go with SIgma 35mm ARt.

consider canon's ef 28mm f1.8 usm
or
canon's ef 35mm f2 is usm
or
canon's ef 35mm f2.

optically the last and oldest 35mm is 95%+ of the performance of the first 35mm (is usm) listed above, and at half the price. but it has the old manual focus by wire - common with the older non-usm lenses. I've shot many times with this little old lens, usually on a full frame (5Dc, etc), and I smile when the images are uploaded and I'm never lonely using this lens - as it's always chirping at me (has its own personality). this little chunk of glass, to me, is no hardship.

the "is usm" 35mm is the newest (as far as current technology) 35mm lens in canon's catalog. it's nice.

the equivalent aps-c focal lengths are 44.8mm for the EF 28mm and 56mm for the EF 35's.

you may also want to consider the 2 pancake lenses - either of which is very nice on a crop body.

the ef-s 24mm is an equiv. focal length of 38.4 and the ef 40mm is an equiv. of 64mm.

historically, a "normal" lens - across various "film" platforms - was considered to be approximately equal to the diagonal measurement of the film size, expressed in mm. for 35mm film cameras, a "true" normal was approximately 47mm (the diagonal of a 24mm x 36mm negative (if memory serves). somehow this morphed into the slightly elongated 50mm normals or even 55/58mm in various cases.

thus, the ef 28mm may be closer to a "true" or classic normal lens than either of your sigma options.

personally, I prefer the 35mm is usm to sigma's 35mm art. I'd stick with the super AF/IS of the canon.

then again, ymmv.

PS - many of the "early greats" in photography spent careers shooting with the equivalent of today's 35mm equiv. lens - steiglitz, bresson', etc etc etc. On an aps-c crop body, that historical lens would correspond to a 22mm equiv. focal length (35/1.6). no surprise = the 22mm focal length is encompassed by most ef-s zoom lenses. wonder why?

I had a pretty good experience with a the 30A...even worked decently well on my 5D Mark iii. I'm not sure how the zoom lens might hold up if you ever wanted to try it on FF. The zoom definitely has added flexibility, but I like the experience of shooting primes.

If you aren't bothered by the extra cost and weight, there really is not much reason to go for the 30mm over the 18-35.

Here you can see what both lenses are capable (on mouse over the pics to see the prime)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=2
I always prefer prime, but on those tests, i will go for the zoom if i do not plan to go FF in a near future, this zoom look like it has, by far, a better sharpness specially in the middle frame and the corner for the equivalent focal length.
bit disappointed that Sigma didn't do the same for FF camera, i would buy one to replace my 16-35 L II

Heya,

Depends on all the properties you want.

The 18-35 ART is very sharp, great lens, but it's huge and heavy. You probably should hold one on a camera to see if you're ok with the size and weight. It's a beast to lug around and point at people at a dinner table.

The 30 ART is excellent, not a huge lens, light, sharp, fast. What you'd expect from a typical good prime.

Personally I would not want the 18-35 simply because of the size. When I go to dinner or have people and we take a few images at the table, I'm not dragging out a huge SLR and an even bigger lens that is heavy. I pull out a simple small EOS-M with a 22mm F2 lens and we're good to go. Wide, sharp, and great ISO handling for low light. Small. Light. But this is just my own preference. I don't want one of my many SLR's at a table.

If I did though, I'd keep it small.

Other options:

Canon EF 28 F1.8
Canon EF 35 F2
Canon EF 35 F IS
Canon EF-S 24 F2.8 STM
Sigma 30 F1.4 (non-ART)
Sigma 35 F1.4 ART

And then there are options like:

Canon/Sigma/Tamron 17-50 (55) F2.8 flavors for wide fast zooms that are still relatively small and light weight.

If you know you're sticking with APS-C for a long while, I'd probably go for the Sigma 30 ART or non-ART. It's a very good lens, great focal length, wide enough. The alternative, for at the table, I'd probably be happy with the 24 F2.8 STM pancake on an APS-C, and just push ISO. Keeps it small light and not "hey look at me I have a 2lb lens in your face."

Very best,

As great as the 18-35mm is optically, it does lack a couple of qualities that I like. It doesn't do f/1.4 like the 30mm does, and it isn't stabilized like some of the 17-5x zooms. If you shot at f/1.4 and primarily at 30mm, and if you shoot hand held at slower shutter speeds - or shoot video - Sigma's 17-50mm would do a better job. The 18-35mm will blur the background slightly more at the long end though.

Both of these qualities would come in handy in my photography, so I'd choose a combo of 30mm + 17-50mm OS.

frugivore wrote in post #17459474
As great as the 18-35mm is optically, it does lack a couple of qualities that I like. It doesn't do f/1.4 like the 30mm does

But then 18-35 doesn't shoot f/1.4 ?

kakegawa wrote in post #17459502
But then 18-35 doesn't shoot f/1.4 ?

constant f/1.8 which is gorgeous for a zoom

frugivore wrote in post #17459474
Both of these qualities would come in handy in my photography, so I'd choose a combo of 30mm + 17-50mm OS.

I bought this combo with the earlier non art 30 before the 18-35/1.8 came out and I am not going to upgrade. Maybe if I wasn't planning on going FF for my next body purchase I might, but I just don't want to give up the OS.

Sirrith wrote in post #17459405
If you aren't bothered by the extra cost and weight, there really is not much reason to go for the 30mm over the 18-35.

I just realized that its weight is 810 gram ... that is heavy and if I buy them, it will be the heaviest lens that I've ever own.

Hmmm ... good point.

kakegawa wrote in post #17459502
But then 18-35 doesn't shoot f/1.4 ?

It does not. f1.8 is 2/3 of a stop slower then f1.4. But what you lose in speed you gain in versatility. The 18-35 is basically multiple fast primes in one package

kakegawa wrote in post #17460679
I just realized that its weight is 810 gram ... that is heavy and if I buy them, it will be the heaviest lens that I've ever own.

The size and weight are over stated. It's big for its range but not for what it is.

If you want fast and small go with the 30. If you want fast and versatile get the 18-35

kakegawa wrote in post #17458981
Hi Fellas,

It's good to be back to POTN after a while.

I noticed the fresh look on the web too! excellent choice!

Ok, to cut the long story short, I have now sold my 24-105 f4 Canon and wanted to purchase new lens for my 7D.

Which of these 2 Sigma lenses would you recommend?

Image sharpness/crispiness?
Low light photography?
Colour intensity?

From my amateur perspective and my friend's opinion, prime lenses are usually a bit sharper compared to zoom lenses but I also heard that this Sigma 18-35 ART zoom lens is one of the exception. I heard a very good review out there on the web but wanted to hear directly from you guys.

I had the opportunity to experience Sigma 50mm f1.4, which I felt a bit too long for my liking. When I'm on the other end of a narrow table, I need to distance myself a bit before I can take a portrait shot of someone on the opposite side of table. Although, optical wise it is very sharp and crisp but f1.4 is very ... very bokeh .. .sometimes I think it's too bokeh.

I look forward to any input and suggestions. Thanks!

What, actually, do you like to photograph?

RDKirk wrote in post #17460961
What, actually, do you like to photograph?

Ok ... what do I like to photograph ... hmmpphhh ...

Some of the following:

1. People (babies, newborn, toddler, people in general really)
   
2. Food
   
3. Ambient light photography for the 2 above ... without the need to bump up the ISO