[toni-a]

Finally I am selling my tokina 16-28f2.8 it's a great sample however heavy and bulky.

I am considering Sigma 20mm f1.4 instead so what do you think?

[Brightcolours]

Finally I am selling my tokina 16-28f2.8 it's a great sample however heavy and bulky.

I am considering Sigma 20mm f1.4 instead so what do you think?

What I think? That that makes no sense at all.

 

You are someone who does not see the advantage of big apertures (which is fine, just noting that). So the f1.4-ness is lost on you (and you have a 5D which does not excel in focus accuracy with that lens at f1.4 I bet).

 

You want to get rid of the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8. Why? Because, as you state, it is "heavy and bulky".

In exchange for what? The Sigma 20mm f1.4.

 

Weight of the Tokina: 950 grams. Length of the Tokina: 133mm. Width of the Tokina: 90mm.

Weight of the Sigma: 950 grams. Length of the Sigma: 130mm. Wight of the Sigma: 91mm.

 

Yeah, really, That makes no sense at all. The exact same weight and bulk. To exchange the 16-28mm focal range for a single focal length.

[Rover]

Canon 16-35/4 L IS (I do sound like a stuck record BOTH recommending that lens AND saying that I sound like a stuck record on this - a nice recursion there). It weighs 615 grams, accepts moderately large filters and optically is nigh on flawless. You won't find any better option, especially with the weight and size being a notable consideration.

 

You can go totally left field with the Sigma 12-24 however, especially if you own a 24-xx lens.

[toni-a]

What I think? That that makes no sense at all.


You are someone who does not see the advantage of big apertures (which is fine, just noting that). So the f1.4-ness is lost on you (and you have a 5D which does not excel in focus accuracy with that lens at f1.4 I bet).


You want to get rid of the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8. Why? Because, as you state, it is "heavy and bulky".

In exchange for what? The Sigma 20mm f1.4.


Weight of the Tokina: 950 grams. Length of the Tokina: 133mm. Width of the Tokina: 90mm.

Weight of the Sigma: 950 grams. Length of the Sigma: 130mm. Wight of the Sigma: 91mm.


Yeah, really, That makes no sense at all. The exact same weight and bulk. To exchange the 16-28mm focal range for a single focal length.

Didn't know the Sigma was that bulky.

And don't get me wrong, fast lenses are important but you don't have to shoot portraits at wide open aperture all the time, and APS-C can do well enough for portraits.

Since I am using full frame less and less this lens on my 750D is pointless especially in the presence of 17-55f2.8 IS.

I wanted a fast good prime and that's the one that looked the obvious along with 100 50 and 35mm primes

[Brightcolours]

f1.4 x 1.6 = f2.24 FF equivalent. Not that fast compared to FF. 

 

In my humble opinion a 1 kilo 20mm f1.4 on APS-C makes little sense. Especially if you find a lens with similar dimensions too heavy and bulky.

 For APS-C you have the 20mm range covered (18mm in the 10-18mm, 20mm in the 17-55mm f2.8 and 18-135mm, 24mm on the 24-105mm f4 L). IS mostly makes up for the difference in speed.

 

So, what is it you actually want? Shallow DOF on the 750D? Look at the Samyang 16mm f2. "Only" 585 grams and 89mm, quite a bit less bulk. Or smaller, lighter FF UWA? I use the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II N myself.

[Rover]

Huh... Why not the go all the way then? I used to (briefly) own a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 and it looked like a decent UWA, not going to win any awards on sharpness but worked pretty well. I only sold it because it was redundant because I had the Sigma 14mm and the Canon 16-35 at the same time. Maybe you can find this lens on a used market still.

[toni-a]

Before getting 17-55f2.8 had Sigma 20mm f1.8 on 30D and just loved it (had also the 14 mm but I widely preferred the 20 mm because of recurrent failures of the 14 mm that cost me 500 EUR in repairs over 3 years)

now you made me rethink, maybe I need nothing at the wide end and better invest elsewhere, if I didn't miss the 16-28 in my bag why should I need that 20 mm ?

[Rover]

Hm... only you can say what you need depending on what you shoot. I love the wide angle side of things so I may be biased, but I think that some manner of ultrawide must be present in every photographer's kit, even if it's just the humble Canon 10-18 (which, despite its puny appearance, does seem to be a force to be reckoned with).

 

Before the 17-55, what is your widest lens going to be?