Low Light Wide Angle VS. Art Lens

[ScottS]

Could someone share their thoughts on the Canon 16-35mm f/4 lens? I've read rave reviews on several forums and photographer blogs. I'm torn between this lens and the Sigma Art 1.4. I know that they have very different functions. However, is the low light capacity of the 16-35mm f/4 good enough for lower light situations (not pitch black of course)? My shots will be of people inside buildings, beside campfires, in lower light concerts, possibly some street life shots. I have to choose ($$$) between these two for now, for financial reasons.

Really just wanting to hear your uses and results on these two lenses. I'll have to prioritize.

Thanks!

Scott S

[RobertTheFat]

As usual, our recommendation is going to depend on what camera(s) and lenses you have now. But I'll share a couple of thoughts while awaiting that information.

I have the 16-35 f/4 and like it very much. I use it on a 5D Mark III. It's not as useful as my main walking-around lens, the 24-105mm f/4; but when I need a wide-angle lens, it's great to have it available. Its image quality is excellent, with less distortion than you'd find in a cheaper WA. I've never used it indoors, but the 5D3's low-light performance is so good that I wouldn't be afraid to if the situation warranted. So if you have a 5D3 or a 6D (whose LL performance is also widely praised), I'd probably recommend the 16-35 over the Sigma. An f/1.4 lens is nice to have, though its low DOF can be annoying. But recent advances in LL performance have made it obsolete in sithations in which it was once a necessity. And frankly, the times you'd really need it may not be frequent enough to justify the cost of a Sigma Art lens.

OTOH, if you use a crop-frame camera, the 16-35 is less useful. I never use it on my 7D's, because it overlaps my 17-55mm f/2.8, which is a stop faster. Perversely, an f/1.4 lens is more valuable on crop cameras, which tend to be poorer in low light. But I think I'd buy the Canon 35mm f/1.4 instead of the Sigma, which I believe is a 50mm, because it matches the midrange of a crop camera better.

All that said, you probably won't go far wrong with either lens. As you say, they serve different purposes, but you're in a position to know which situations you'll face more often. For the less frequent usage, perhaps a lesser lens would suffice.

[ScottS]

Bob, 

Thanks for your insights! I appreciate them very much!

Sorry! I meant to include the equipment that I will be purchasing soon as I can:

Canon 6D

Canon 24-105mm f/4 Lens (accompanying the above purchase)

Canon 70-200mm f/4 Lens (choosing this over the fab 2.8 IS II simply because of my trekking and need for lighter weight

So this lens decision would round out my "trio" for now.

I also (with my Canon 40D) have the Canon 50mm 1.8 II

That was the thing about the 6D. Having read about its incredible sensor for low light, it makes me think I could use the 16-35 indoors, at least for many shots. You're absolutely right: I just have to decide if I'll be shooting more landscape pics, outdoor pics, or more people inside pics.

Scott S 

[Waddizzle]

"However, is the low light capacity of the 16-35mm f/4 good enough for lower light situations (not pitch black of course?" 

I agree with Robert.  The best answer will depend upon the camera that you are using.  I have a 6D that I use with the 16-35mm f/2.8 Mk 2, which I absolutely love.  My personal preference is for wide angle shots over telephoto closeups.  Most of the time, I am taking indoor shots at around f/4 because of Depth of Field, DOF

Speaking of DOF, you may wish to check out a web site I have recently found, dofmasterDOTcom.  It displays charts of DOF for various camera and lens combinations.  You can even download an app that does it to a smartphone or a tablet.

[ScottS]

Waddizzle,

Thanks for sharing that site. I'll check it out! Glad to hear that you are enjoying your 6D, too! Truly cannot wait to purchase that. I'll definitely keep my 40D as a back-up, but I can't wait to step into this new "arena" of photography with the 6D.

Scott S

[Waddizzle]

---

@ScottS wrote:

Waddizzle,

Thanks for sharing that site. I'll check it out! Glad to hear that you are enjoying your 6D, too! Truly cannot wait to purchase that. I'll definitely keep my 40D as a back-up, but I can't wait to step into this new "arena" of photography with the 6D.

Scott S

---

I hope you enjoy your new purchases.  The image difference between an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor are worlds apart.  Take as many pictures as you can at the lowest ISO settings that are practical.  I have learned to try to grab as much light as I can [as wide an aperture as your desired DOF allows] as fast [high shutter speed] as I can, always yields the sharpest photos.

I recently purchased the 70-200mm f/2/8 IS Mk2, and I have guickly grown accustomed to the weight of it with my 6D w/battery grip.  Together it is a heavy combination compared to where I started, a T5 with kit lenses.  I was doubtful of the top model, but I think the big difference is in the improved, two stage IS performance, which is amazing.  I gain 2-3 stops in exposure.  Don't let the weight of it scare you away.  The image quality leaves me in awe.  I shot some photos a month ago on a chily, overcast, winter day.

Here is a closeup of the canon barrel.  You can see the individual hairs in the brush marks.

The images are fantastic. The colors and contrast are so true to life.

[ScottS]

Congrats, Waddizzle!

Great shots :)! And thanks for getting me even more excited for my purchases :)!

Scott S

[ScottyP]

Counterpoint:  

I have a 6d and I agree it is great in low light. It gives me, according to websites that claim to know such things, a bit more than 1 full stop of low light performance over a crop sensor camera. That is great to have. 

However......... It seems like all your lenses, and all your planned future lenses, are f/4 lenses other than the nifty fifty.  Full frame cameras can get you that stop of light.  An f/1.4 lens gives you THREE stops of light vs. an f/4 lens. And as stops compound every whole stop, 3 stops vs. 1 stop is EIGHT times more light and high ISO image quality vs. just TWO times. 

If you were shooting architecture or inanimate objects you could do a tripod and a long exposure but with people you need a faster shutter.  

I agree the shallow DOF of a big aperture lens can be limiting, but:  1.) just because your lens can go to f/1.4 doesn't mean you can't shoot at f/4 whenever you want to, and 2.) the DOF is not as shallow on a wider lens (24mm or 35mm) as on a longer focal length like 50 or 85.  

[ScottS]

Scotty P,

Thanks for your Counterpoint!

I didn't expect this to be "easy" for me ;)!! Clearly it's a trade-off. It's funny. When I look at images with either the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art OR the Canon 16-35mm f/4 ~ I realize that I'm smitten with both. I guess....eventually......BOTH :)!

For now I'll have to compromise for my trips, and decide: People vs. Landscape & Architecture. Perhaps I can just ask everyone to stop moving around so much and sit down when I'm taking photos inside ;)!

As always, I appreciate your insights, Scotty!

Scott S

[ScottyP]

Ha! I can't get my subjects to hold still often enough, though mine are 4, 9 and 10. 

I should have have mentioned I have the Sigma 35 Art too. This one photographer can say this:  I love it. I have nearly stopped using my 24-105 and the Art 35 is definitely my walk around lens. (I switch to the 70-200 for telephoto).  The Art is crazy sharp, it renders colors beautifully, it focuses fast and smooth like my Canon 70-200, and it is built solidly of metal.