User Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Apologies for beating this C100 Mkii/ 1DC horse to death but... I'm trying to decide between the Canon 16-35mm f4 and the Sigma 18-35mm 1.4.I understand the differences but I'm wondering if anyone here has used both and can comment on which one they prefer most for general use?I'd be using it on the C100 mkii and although the Sigma doesn't have IS, I'm not so sure that it really bothers me because the combined weight of both camera and lens has a tendency to reduce the micro jitter, and I'm pretty well versed in my steady-cam tai chi duck walk.Does the f1.8 really make for more cinematic-esque images over the f4 on such a wide lens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-16-35mm-F4L-IS-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Sigma-18-35mm-F18-DC-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-7D__1367_795_1141_619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 If by cinematic you mean shallow DOF, then yes, the difference will be quite noticeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 Importantly, how does the C100 Mkii 'one touch auto focus' work with the Sigma? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lintelfilm Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 The 18-35mm used to only work well with Dual Pixel AF at f/1.8, but Sigma have now updated the firmware so it works at all apertures (reportedly very well). So make sure you buy a unit with a later serial number - otherwise you'll have to update it manually with a dock or by sending it back to Sigma.The 18-35mm is undoubtedly the more "cinematic" lens. It really is like owning three cinema primes in one (in terms of image quality), and yes, even at 18mm you can get nice shallow DOF with moderately close subjects. If you're doing run&gun there's no denying IS is a big benefit - but the difference between f4 and f1.8 is significant.What about the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS as a compromise? A lot of professional C100 owners have sworn by that lens as "the one" for a while now. It's not as sexy as the Canon "L" or the Sigma Art, but it's a damn good lens.Also interesting might be to consider one of Canons newish image-stabilised, wide primes - I think they do a 24mm 2.8 IS, a 28mm 2.8 IS and a 35mm 2.0 IS. The 35mm I know is superb. User 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Posted October 11, 2015 Author Share Posted October 11, 2015 Hey Matt, thanks for jumping in here.Good to hear that Sigma have made the update so the lens works at all apertures. Great insight on getting a recent lens as well to avoid having to grab the dock unit. Thanks for that.I've considered the 17-55mm f2.8, just trying to get a sense of the difference 'look/ feel' between f4 and f1.8 on a 35mm sensor. I know this on a full frame only.Never tried the 35mm 2.0 but love my 35mm 1.4L but it is having its ass roasted by the new Canon 35mm 1.4L II and Sigma 35mm 1.4 offerings.With regards to your other suggestions, I don't really want to look so closely at the 24mm f2.8 IS and 35mm f2.0 IS as I need a something wider for the C100 crop sensor. I do however like them for their smaller form factor. A small 16mm pancake could be interesting though, but I don't want to go near anything fly by wire.One part of me likes the Canon 16-35mm as I would be able to use it with my 5DM2 or other full frame sensors down the road. Ya know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.