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

[ebiggs1]

Always go Canon if it works and fits the bill.  You are at f4 mostly so staying there is not going to be any different for you.  The light ability is not changed by focal length or different than what you are already seeing.

"The image difference between an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor are worlds apart."

This is pure nonsense.  It isn't true so don't let it deter or convince you.

[ScottyP]

If the Canon is double the price, though, you have to prioritize. I was very willing to pay $2,500 for my Canon 70-200 (yes I know it is now cheaper) and I am still happy I spent it because the images are lovely.   For a wide angle I could not justify the Canon. Your budget probably says you can splurge on some lenses and economize on others. 

[Waddizzle]

"The image difference between an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor are worlds apart."

This is pure nonsense.  It isn't true so don't let it deter or convince you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there is a big difference.  The FF sensor in the 6D has bigger  pixels, a.k.a. "light buckets".  The pixel size of 6.55 µm.is way bigger than current APS-C sensors.  The higher S/N ratio from the larger pixels is real, not imagined.

[Waddizzle]

The angle of view on a full frame sensor body camera is much wider than with the same lens on an APS-C body.  In addition to the wider angle of view, the full frame sensor gives you dramatically more DOF.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The image difference between an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor are worlds apart.  The laws of physics says they are.

[ebiggs1]

That is not what you said!  You said....

""The image difference between an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor are worlds apart.""

And that statement is nonsense and not true.  That is reading and not doing experience.  IMHO, of course.

The size of the sensor is not the issue as you correctly later pointed out.

"The laws of physics says they are."

Right!  More than one?   How many?  I think it is the law of waddizzle    

[Waddizzle]

That is not what you said!  You said....

""The image difference between an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor are worlds apart.""

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, Ernie, that is EXACTLY what I wrote previously, and what I later repeated.  Sorry.

The problem is obvious to me, though..  Above is what I wrote, while just below is what you read:

"The  image quality diffence beteeen an APS-C sensor and a FF sensor are worlds apart."

I use cameras with both types of sensors, BTW.  You're arguing against the math, and easily made observations.

[ScottyP]

Wadizzle:  

I think you meant to say the full frame camera gives you less DOF, not more DOF. The depth of field in focus on FF is shallower.  The FF gives stronger background blur/bokeh. 

[ebiggs1]

"I use cameras with both types of sensors, BTW.  You're arguing against the math, and easily made observations."

You are one confused sole.  You need to do some more reading. This is the problem when a person just reads a few articles or reviews on the web.  No matter how you spin it, it isn't true.  Maybe you are using 'new math'.

The fact you use "both" types of sensors is meaningless.  A given sensor can deliver better performance but you can not say, flatly FF beats a APS-C.  This is the same as with a APS-H sensor.  Some will be better some will not.

If you wanted to say a 1Ds MkII bests a Rebel XT, I am all with you for instance.  It is the pixel size.  Not the sensor size.

That is about as simple as I can explain it.

[Waddizzle]

"

Wadizzle:  

I think you meant to say the full frame camera gives you less DOF, not more DOF. The depth of field in focus on FF is shallower.  The FF gives stronger background blur/bokeh. "  

What you say is true.....from a certain point of view.

The calculations can show that a FF sensor will have a shorter DOF if you adjust the focal length for crop factor, 50mm vx. 80mm.

[ebiggs1]

"What you say is true.....from a certain point of view."

No what Scott says is true period.  A 50mm lens on a crop is going to have less DOF than that same lens will on a FF.  The lens did not, can not change its focal length.  It is the sensor in this case that does make the difference.  It is what it is.