Replacing 18-35 1.8 with Canon 35mm 2.0 IS

First of all, I really like almost everything of the Sigma 18-35... except for it's weight and size. So I'm considering replacing it with the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM for more portability. I know I'll be giving up some very useful focal range, but I think my 18-135 STM will cover that well enough.

I just feel the Sigma is a bit too cumbersome to carry around all day on city trips. Also, the Canon will probably focus way more consistently than the Sigma, which was a problem for me aswell.

Any thoughts? Am I crazy?

Where do you use the Sigma most? If you consistently use it at/near 35mm, then the 35 f/2 IS could be a good replacement; I have one and like it a lot.
On the other hand, I also have a 16-35 f/4 L that is my favorite lens; not a chance that I would give it up for just a 35mm.

Heya,

Not crazy.

That's a heavy, big lens, it's not for everyone. It's a great lens, with a really useful focal range and wonderful aperture. But it's compromise is size and weight.

Depending on your needs, also, you may not need F1.8 at 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, etc. You're saying city trips and all. Those wider angles even at F2.8 are going to produce a lot of depth of field, so the only real gain from F1.8 on them is the light itself to use less ISO and/or use higher shutter speeds. Even then, you can get away with more ISO with a modern camera like you have.

But it all comes down to what you use it for, and what focal length you primarily use.

Very best,

35mm f2 is Canon is hands down faster and more accurate at autofocusing, to the point that I chose it over a 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art for weddings for a time.

Lightroom tells me that I shoot mostly at 18mm and even more at 35mm. All those wider shots are actually outside in daylight so I think the 18-135 STM will do for that. Not having to worry about incorrect focusing with the Canon is also tempting...

Btw, with the money you save, couldn't you also get a Canon 10-18mm STM to go with the 35mm f/2 IS?

I already have the 10-18 STM.

Also, I won't be saving that much money... the Canon 35mm is still pretty expensive here.

One step ahead of me. . Yeah, I haven't checked pricing on it in a while.

RobinSchouten wrote in post #17908334
Am I crazy?

Yes..but I think I'm one of the few people who don't find the 18-35 all that big and heavy.

In all seriousness though, if you don't like using the 18-35 and just want a 35mm lens instead then get a 35mm lens. No point in owning a lens you don't like or don't want to carry. The canon 35mm f2 IS is a great little lens.

I'd keep the the 18-35. Grab the 18-135 when you want to go light. Maybe just add a 24/2.8 pancake to compliment the 18-135.

Yes, I really like this idea. I'm leaning towards either of the two pancake lenses. That way I can leave the Sigma at home and use it only when I really need it. This would also mean I can fit three lenses in my messenger bag: the 10-18, 18-135 and a pancake lens.

I'll probably choose the 40 over the 24, but I'm not sure.

Small plottwist here: decided to keep the Sigma 18-35 and sell the 18-135 STM, since I never shoot anything telephoto anyway. This way I no longer have overlap and as a little bonus (pun intended) I bought myself the 40mm STM pancake.

RobinSchouten wrote in post #17920667
Small plottwist here: decided to keep the Sigma 18-35 and sell the 18-135 STM, since I never shoot anything telephoto anyway. This way I no longer have overlap and as a little bonus (pun intended) I bought myself the 40mm STM pancake.

Wow, much plot twist.