Crop zooms to complement sigma 18-35 f/1.8?

When the f3.5 version came out initial reports were that the older version was better...it didn't really replace it, as they were sold along side each other

I still use mine on my 70D, only thing I don't like is the flare

Stregone wrote in post #17945626
I updated my gear list. I think i got everything. I have stuff spread out in several bags that I had to dig through. Have a bunch of film stuff (Canon EF, and FD stuff, plus a couple medium format cameras) too. Black and white film is a lot of fun

I think I will go with the 50-150 next. That extra reach I think will be more useful for me. Though the 50-100 1.8 sounds really nice too. Maybe I will eventually end up with both, lol.

How about the wide end? Looking on DXOmark all the wide zooms are kinda meh at best. My 10-20 is the old version which has even worse marks, but I must say as far as colors and contrast it is pretty nice.

I don't see your gear list, so am sort of responding in the dark and only in response to what you've posted here, and have to assume that since you mention some crop lenses, you are using a crop camera...

Wide angle, if you don't use it a lot, the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is a screamingly good bargain. It sells for no more than $300 and is quite compact. Most crop ultrawides are at least $100 more, very few have IS, and this is the most compact anyone offers. It uses 67mm filters, for example, while all others use at least 77mm and a few require 82mm. The 10-18mm is a bit plasticky, but for someone who doesn't use that type lens a lot, should be fine. Some reviewers feel it's IQ is as good as or better than the EF-S 10-22mm USM, which has been one of the best ultrawides made by anyone for a lot of years. These lenses are variable aperture f4.5-5.6 (10-18) or f3.5-5.6 (10-22), but that rarely matters unless you do a lot of manual flash work. And, on an ultrawide, f2.8 or faster also isn't needed by most users. f3.5, f4 or f4.5 is fine and makes for a smaller, lighter and less expensive lens with better correction and flare resistance. A 10-18mm also dovetails nicely into your focal length line-up.

I don't get and wouldn't buy the original Sigma 50-150mm f2.8.... so am skeptical about the new 50-100/1.8 too. Both are a "DC" or crop-only lenses.... The older Sigma 50-150mm was the same size and weight as a 70-200/2.8 anyway... Not sure about the new lens, but suspect it's pretty large and heavy too. So why not just get a 70-200mm, that's equally usable on either crop or full frame cameras, and be done with it? Of course, a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM Mark II ain't cheap. A good alternative is the EF 70-200mm f4 IS USM... closer to the same price as the new Siggy 50-100mm f1.8, too. The f4 lens is about 1/3 lighter and smaller than any of those faster lenses, too. Great lens, though... fast focusing, 3 to 4 stop stabilization, almost equal in image quality and sharpness to the 70-200/2.8 Mark II, which many feel is the best anyone has ever made.

I know is doesn't have stabilization, but have not been able to find out if the new Siggy 50-100/1.8 is an "IF" lens. I also wonder if it's as sharp and free of chromatic aberration as the Canon 70-200s, which use fluorite elements. Sigma claims the "FLD" elements they use in this and other lenses is equal to fluorite... but I don't know if that's true.

EDIT: Just found an online review of a prototype that states it's an IF (internal focusing and zooming) lens. It also states it's parfocal, meaning the focus is retained even when zoomed (many zooms today are varifocal, need to be re-focused after zooming). The reviewer noted a lot of flare, not uncommon in large aperture lenses, but also noted that it was possible that a final production version would have better coatings and dampening to better control flare. Still, a crop only lens that's 3.5 lb. and uses 82mm filters? That's larger and heavier than many full frame capable 70-200/2.8.

If you click on his member name you can see his gear list

Right now there are 4 faster than 2.8 zooms: 14-20/2, 18-35/1.8, 24-35/2, and 50-100/1.8. I really wish Canon would start playing I this ball park.

For crop skip the 24-35 and get the other three above. Add a 10-18 and 100-400 II and a macro and it covers a lot.

It would be handy if you could edit to add Brand names to that lens list of yours, for the benefit of other readers of the thread. I had Googled "14-35" and "24-35" and the search resulted in zero references to any lens, unlike the reference to "18-35".

The 14-20mm is a tokina, the rest are sigma

Wilt wrote in post #17946801
It would be handy if you could edit to add Brand names to that lens list of yours, for the benefit of other readers of the thread. I had Googled "14-35" and "24-35" and the search resulted in zero references to any lens, unlike the reference to "18-35".

I can see why you had zero hits on the 14-35 (not 14-20) but the 24-35 should have come up with stuff.

FEChariot wrote in post #17946843
I can see why you had zero hits on the 14-35 (not 14-20) but the 24-35 should have come up with stuff.

No I merely followed up and wrongly posted about a '14-35'...'14-20' is equally a Google no-hit photographically speaking, multiple pages of bible chapter and verse references result, with no 14-20 reference to the Book of Tokina, nor 24-35 references to the Book of Sigma !

You should try adding mm to the end...14-20mm brings up results

Wilt wrote in post #17947007
No I merely followed up and wrongly posted about a '14-35'...'14-20' is equally a Google no-hit photographically speaking, multiple pages of bible chapter and verse references result, with no 14-20 reference to the Book of Tokina, nor 24-35 references to the Book of Sigma !

Hah that's funny. Yeah good thing to throw in "lens" after the numbers.

DreDaze wrote in post #17947075
You should try adding mm to the end...14-20mm brings up results

Or that.

DreDaze wrote in post #17947075
You should try adding mm to the end...14-20mm brings up results

Shoulda put the mm in the first time I did it. As it is, adding the mm results in reference to Tokina 14-20, and reference to Vulcan 20mm cannons (6000 rounds per minute!) and bullets, but no refererences to Book of Tokina verses 14-40 any more.