07-07-2010, 11:23 PM
[quote name='Christos' date='07 July 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1278522543' post='881']
Well the sigma 12-24 would only be used for Landscape, and was thinking of the EF 16-35 2.8 II for weddings as I heard it is a super lens.
[/quote]
If you want to use the Sigma 12-24 EX for landscapes, I think you might get disappointed. The 8-16 is essentially the same lens for APS-C, but with a completely new design, and quite a bit better too, just say, the difference between a rough log table and a table made from the finest polished olive, cherry or pear wood.. If I were you and I wanted a relatively cheap extreme UWA zoom, that is the only lens I would opt for, having owned a 12-24 EX. I actually exchanged the 12-24 for a Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter, and that again I exchanged for a TS-E 17L (which I kept <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />). However, this on FF, not on APS-C.
The 16-35 II is a bread and butter lens for many journalists and reportage shooters, but not so much on APS-C as on FF.
However, if you can't see the difference, I wouldn't bother, get the 8-16, and a 550D for backup.
Having said all that, I think it is very hard to go back once you've shot FF.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Well the sigma 12-24 would only be used for Landscape, and was thinking of the EF 16-35 2.8 II for weddings as I heard it is a super lens.
[/quote]
If you want to use the Sigma 12-24 EX for landscapes, I think you might get disappointed. The 8-16 is essentially the same lens for APS-C, but with a completely new design, and quite a bit better too, just say, the difference between a rough log table and a table made from the finest polished olive, cherry or pear wood.. If I were you and I wanted a relatively cheap extreme UWA zoom, that is the only lens I would opt for, having owned a 12-24 EX. I actually exchanged the 12-24 for a Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter, and that again I exchanged for a TS-E 17L (which I kept <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />). However, this on FF, not on APS-C.The 16-35 II is a bread and butter lens for many journalists and reportage shooters, but not so much on APS-C as on FF.
However, if you can't see the difference, I wouldn't bother, get the 8-16, and a 550D for backup.
Having said all that, I think it is very hard to go back once you've shot FF.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
