I have probably read everything there is to read on the internet about the sensational Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. I'm choosing a wide angle lens to shoot landscapes during the day and night, including milky way (astro) photography.
According to Lenstip, the resolution is nearly identical to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, only it opens up 1 stop brighter - critical for night sky shots where the difference between a 12 second or 25 second exposure means blurry stars.
The Tokina has noticeable CA, the Sigma does not. Both handle coma well. The Tokina is soft in the corners at it's widest aperture, the Sigma is not.
For landscapes during day or night, the Tokina has the focal length advantage to get nice foreground detail. The Sigma has the aperture advantage to get a nice sharp night sky. But is it wide enough?
The Sigma also would double as a normal lens, whereas the ultra-wide Tokina is specialized and I likely wouldn't use it for much else.
The Rokinon 14 f/2.8 is ruled out because of its rounded glass, making it unsuitable for daytime landscaping, and its inability to fit a filter like an ND grad or CP.
What would you do? Is 18mm acceptable to get a sharp f/1.8? Or would you take the 11-16, gaining field of view but compromising at f/2.8?
Bookmarks