Canon 17-55 f2.8 vs. Sigma 18-35 f1.8 for film- and video shooters | BMPCC6K
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- Chapters:
(0:00:00) Introduction
(0:00:52) Build quality, features, price
(0:02:09) Sharpness, color, notes
(0:05:44) Focus breathing, flaring
(0:06:54) IS
(0:09:16) Chromatic aberration, distortion
(0:10:17) Real world footage
(0:12:00) Personal opinion
Hi guys,
in the last couple of weeks we did some testing with the Canon 17-55 f2.8 and the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. They are both very nice lenses for sure. The Canon is, in my opinion, unbeatable for it's price point - especially if you buy it used. But see for yourself :)
We recorded everything in BRAW 5:1 and exported a ProRes file for maximum quality. The indoor tests are not scientific by any means, but instead, they intend to give you an idea of how both lenses behave at different focal ranges and apertures. For lighting used an aputure amaran panel at 3200K, as LEDs tend to have way better SSI in tungsten mode.
If you have any questions, let us know in the comments.
Cheers,
Max - Фільми й анімація
I feel like the other thing that needs mentioning for a run and gun filmmaker here is the extra reach offered by the Canon. If you're doing documentary work, you often need to capture a few different shots of a moment while its happening. This is where a zoom lens is your friend: you can grab your wide, then punch in on a few tighter shots without moving around too much which can distract your subject. I've played around a bit with the fan favorite 17-35, and I just found the throw to be inadequate to do what I needed to in this regard. I have to move the camera in to get a tighter shot, and by the time I do that my subject may be on to something else, or they may get awkward from feeling the camera on them. With the 17-55, I can grab my wide and punch in on a couple tight shots before moving, giving me more for the edit.
Canon lenses look SO good on the sunlight
Fantastic comparison. Getting the Canon, I like how it preserves a lot of detail while also having a very creamy non-clinical look. Thank you for this, subscribed!
Nice review ... very well structured ... Keep up the good work
Thank you!
why dose this channel only has 10 subscribers? great review!
Love u too :D
Awesome content, looking forward to the next vid!
thanks!
Sehr gutes Review vielen Dank!
Just bought the 6k and 17-55. Great video! Looking forward to more videos by you all. Cheers
Good choise and thanks! We were recently shooting a beer commercial with that setup and it worked really well.
@@szenenschmiede hope to see the video!
Watching this video in 4K, I think I prefer the 'creamier' and 'less-sharp/less-clinical' look of the Canon, especially when you have the 6K sensor doing a lot of the heavy-lifting in terms of detail. For me, there is still plenty of sharpness, the Canon has more of a cinematic look about it and the image stabilisation is also a big plus/factor. Thanks for some fantastic thoughts and footage.
thank you! i think they are both great for different use cases. the canon is, especially in 6k, still a very sharp lens.
The main problem with the Canon is the edge sharpness when shooting wide open. But personally I’m quite satisfied with the results at f2.8. When I stop down to f5.6 the image is sharp edge to edge throughout the zoom range.
I began on the Sigma 18-35, and I just ordered the Canon because you need that IS for handheld work. The gimbal with this camera is very heavy.
Melhor review que eu encontrei. =)
Great video thx a lot
Excellent review
Thanks!
I also did some tests and the 17-55 definitely has a more filmic look (less clinical than the Sigma). Great video. Thanks
Yeah, this fact and the price made me buy the 17-55 the 2nd time in my life (had already one for nearly 10 years).
I think its one of the very few MUST HAVE lenses if you are on a budget APS-C camera with EF or RF mount. I really enjoy it on the EOS R7, its the only "compact" zoom lens i can think of which has a somewhat usable aperture for smaller sensors.
I had also a while the 24-70 2.8L on full frame (pretty much the FF lens to go in comparable focal range) and in fact the 17-55 isnt much worse in image quality (but A LOT CHEAPER!). I even enjoy the APS-C variant much more now... lighter body, much lighter and smaller lens, therefor i can live with slightly more disortion and chromatic aberations.
What bugs me still the most with the 17-55... the build quality and zoom creeping are super annoying beside the worst dust pump design i ever saw.
Hey did you guys use an IR cut filter as well for the outdoor shots?
GOOD JOB!
Great video! I just started my photography biz and I'm still deciding what to get. I've been doing portraits and events photography but I'm looking for a sharper lens than the one I have. I own a Canon 80d!
get the canon! :) it will give you more character
I had just ordered the Canon 17-55 a few days before this video came out. This confirms all the reasons why I ordered the 17-55 over the Sigma. Do you grade in DaVinci or Premiere?
good choice! most of the time i grade in DaVinci. Thanks for watching!
very well done
thanks man! :)
Cooles Video bro.
Also grundsätzlich mag ich auch eher den creamie Look u d somit bevorzuge ich auch das canon.
Jedoch stellt sich eine Frage.
Arbeite viel mit dem k&f mist 1/8.
So ziemlich immer ist sie drauf.
Ist es nicht sinnvoller eine Scharfe Linse zu holen und mit einem Mist filter weich zu machen.
Oder eine ohnehin schon weiches objektiv mit einem Filter noch weicher zu machen.
Ist es dann nicht schon. Zu viel des Guten?!
Danke! Ich würde sagen nein. Das Canon ist (retrospektiv und nachdem ich ins game der vintage Objektive über das letzte Jahr eingestiegen bin) definitiv das beste APSC Zoom. Super Abbildung ohne klinisch zu sein wie das Sigma. Wenn man auf die 1.8er Blende verzichten kann und damit leben kann, dass der Focus Barrel ausfährt, auf jeden Fall zum Canon greifen.:) Ich bin kein Fan von dem Look (Promist + Scharfes Objektiv wie das Sigma, aber es ist besser mit, als ohne!)
Good afternoon, 17-55 is the crunch of the stabilizer and autofocus strongly audible during video shooting?
Thank you for the superb comparison. Do you think the slightly lower sharpness of the Canon is a good substitute for something like a Cinebloom or Black PronMist filter? Or do you think such filters still have a place on such a lens?
Thanks for watching! I think they have a place but the lens already seems pretty balanced :)
I love this
hi what is the name of the track at 10 50? great music
hi, i am just starting out, which one is good for wedding/interview and short films. i will be using Canon SL2/200D. pls advise. thanks
hi there! you should be fine with the canon :) buy a used one in good condition.
sehr gut gemacht das video top!
danke für die tips!
bin am überlegen hatte das sigma 18-35 auf meiner alten bmpcc4k. Tolle qualität aber für handheld total mühasm die stabilisierung in post und nicht immer möglich... daher suche ich nach objektiven mit is für die 6kpro. aber die stabiliserung auf dem canon 17-55 wirkte manchmal einbisschen komisch sobald sie die stabilisierung verliert kamen unnatürliche ruckler zum vorschein im video.. was meinst du zur handheld performance vom 17-55
Danke und top video
Hi und thx for watching! Die Stabilisierung vom Canon ist echt gut, konnte bisher keine Bildartefakte beim Stabilisieren feststellen. Preis Leistung ist unschlagbar, wenn du die Optik gebraucht kaufst. LG :)
@@szenenschmiede danke dir !
What camera did you use for real world footage with sigam 18-35?
I use the 18-35. I never have to re-balance if I change the focal length on my Glidecam.
Excuse me, but what`s the reason to compare lenses with such a different focal and aperture? There is similar to Canon lens Sigma 17-50mm F/2.8 EX DC OS HSM, just a litle bit shorter in focal, but with exactly same aperture as Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8. That would be fair comparison.
How does the focus ring compare on both lenses? Which is the smoothest? Thanks!
Kind of difficult to say :) canon is probably a little smoother. but they both have a really short focus throw - i have the feeling that the canon's is a little longer.
I own both. Bought the 17-55 for the IS, but I'm kinda meh about it because of the crappy focus and zoom rings. Especially the focus ring is very plasticy. If your serious about video and need focus pulls, this really isn't the lens to buy.
@@FineLine-Media I dont know about the age/abusement of your 17-55... but my 2nd hand 17-55 was already heavily used so the zoom is THAT LOOSE, you can push/pull the zoom at the front barrel or lens hood very easy and "smooth".
My focus ring feels pretty much the same to some Canon EF L glass and other nano and ring USMs, pretty ok in my opinion just slightly too sensible
I had once also a 17-55 for 10 years and bought it once nearly new, it definately changes over the years and get smoother and easier to zoom.
Beside all the problems (dust pump, low build quality, fragile image stabilizer electronics,..) one of the best standard zoom lenses you can own for APS-C/EF/RF and "little" money.
Canon wins for that IS which is made needed for this camera
Looking at the footage it sure doesn't make sense to get the sigma. So just purchased the Canon for my eos m. Planning to get the speed booster.
Something interesting to know as well...
The Sigma is not weather sealed, but somehow "sealed" to make dust etc harder to enter the inside of the lens, the Canon is 100% unprotected, by far the worst dust pump i ever had and i had already a lot of lenses from super cheap to more professional grade.
What film profile did you use??
BMD Film :)
Hi! I’m not sure which one should I buy, can someone help me out? I’m starting and I want to do some cinematic travel video
hi! thanks for watching. which camera are you using?
@@szenenschmiede I’m using a Canon rebel T1i
@@paulacalderon3792 you should be absolutely fine with the canon. Buy a used one in good condition. It’s cheaper and the IS will help you a lot shooting your handheld travel videos :)
@@szenenschmiede Thank you so much!! I’ll do it! And come back and tell you how is going!! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ and
Don’t be naive. NO lens has TRUE constant aperture throughout the entire zoom range, the $80k “Cine lenses” included.
Go put one on a camera with a decent waveform monitor; aim the lens at an evenly lit gray card; open up full aperture and let the light level sit on 70IRE or so. Zoom the lens in and out; check the waveform and see for yourself.
Hi Derek. Thanks for watching! Of course every lens looses a little bit of light when zooming in. But I don't think it's naive putting this information in a video, because a lot of people are not aware of this. The Canon does this A LOT. On the other hand it's pretty much not noticeable with the sigma, this is why i pointed it out :) but thanks anyways, we hope you'll be around in the next videos!
Is the 1/4 stop of light loss a dealbreaker? I was watching Christopher Frost's review (ua-cam.com/video/IPpSdnWtF88/v-deo.html) and it didn't seem to have the brightness drop that you experienced. Thinking of picking one up for the extra range even though I have the Sigma 18-35 already.
Definitely not a dealbreaker ;)
Great video, but I think you can really tell that especially the Canon is not state of the art anymore. That IS is not as effective as it could be imo.
depends! :) i think it's great and really helps a lot. thanks for watching!
it's darker because F stops and T stops are not the same thing for a reason.....
the only review of the sigma 18 35 f 1.8 to another 2.8 zoom. Subscribe
But U havnt ralk about silent autofocus in 1755 mm
Shoot on 6k or 4k?
6K :)
@@szenenschmiede do you think it's worth taking it for 4k camera? i mean 17-55? feeling that the sharpness is not enough for this resolution...
@@user-mp9uv1bj3k I use it on the R7, downsampled from 7k to 4k (4k fine setting) its looking very good. Sure its missing a bit sharpness compared to a sharp prime or macro lens but i would rather say 6k+ is unnecessary for this lens, but 4k is just fine for wide open aperture. For 6k you better use F4 or F5.6
I also tested a 16-35 2.8 full frame lens on the R7 and the 17-55 was NOTICABLE SHARPER than the 16-35 at least, but yeah its an old FF lens of the time where 12MP was considered high resolution.
I would not care about the sharpness of this lens too much to be honest, especially not for video! More interesting problem at photos shot at 2.8! I use it sometimes even for wide angle astrophotography when i dont have my manual focus primes with me (with only bad looking corner stars due CA, not sharpness)
@@harrison00xXx thanks for remembering me, lol, now i have fuji with fringer adapter for canon, as an option in the future I planned to take bmpcc4k, there really is no oversampling as far as I know. thank you
@@harrison00xXx hello ! i have the same Canon R7 with the 16mm f2.8 but still thinking to buy this 17-55mm , do you think is better than the 16mm f2.8? autofocus sound, stabilitation works fine ? need your help! haha
Do you use a speed booster ?
The Bmpcc6k has an EF mount. It doesn’t work with a speed booster so far, except the one from luc adapters but it’s permanent. Thanks for watching!
Wait the Sigma has IS?
no, just for reference!
Yes the Sigma has IS
@@jayclas4023 없어
One thing a lot of people don’t mention…the stabilization on the canon is absolutely terrible. It’s so inconsistent from copy to copy and my two copies both had an odd tilt/edge wobble, as if it was only stabilizing one axis. I would leave it switched off it was so bad.
It looked fine in this video
Canon got character and sigma got reliability issues and magenta shade with unwanted sharpness.Canon wins.