[kaede]

Should I Buy myself the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Lens? Or get a secondary all rounder pocket sized camera for vacation: the Sony rx100 iii (mark.3)

I'm looking to spend less than $1k to upgrade my overall camera gear. I mostly use my cameras for travelling and I want something that can go wide with a decently fast lens for low light photography. I Don't do much video at all. This is my current gear:

Canon 70D + battery grip
Canon T2i (for back up) + battery grip
Canon 24-105mm F/4L IS USM (Kit lens for Full Frame Canons)
Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II USM
Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm F/1.4 (no AF, full manual, usually use for portraits and just fooling around street photography).

If i get the Sigma:
I do not have anything that goes extremely wide, so the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 will fit the bill very very nicely. Wide fast aperture will allow me to take clear sharp pictures at night/low light environment, coupled with the zoom range, this is a bargain peice for sure with excellent performance that rivals (on some occasion, even better) Prime lens that Canon/Nikon produces.

Pros: I will finally have all my range covered, will have low light and wide angle with the Sigma, for travelling and just one-lens purpose the Canon 24-105mm will do. If i really need the extra reach, then snap on the 70-200mm. Life is perfect in terms of Lens line up. (Next upgrade will be to ditch the 24-105mm F/4 for the 24-70mm F/2.8 II). Compared to most "Pro" lens, this is a bargain at around $800 that offers Pro Lens quality for APS-C sensor in both build and image results.

Cons: SINCE I use my camera mostly during travel and vacation, carrying around ALL the lens will be a heavy toll. Also, all the Lens are not exactly light weight... In fact, the ones I own are all quite beefy, by the end of the day, even with a very good camera backpack, I will get back aches and my wrist will feel weak from carrying the camera around.

If I get the Sony RX100 III:

Pros: Secondary camera for my Canon 70D, can sell my T2i for some extra cash which is a bonus. This pocket sized Sony camera really packs a punch and is truly a marvel. Comes with build in EVF (electronic view finder) and flash, 1 inch sensor (smaller than APS-C and micro 4/3, but definitely better than all cell phones and most compact digital size cameras). Great Zeiss Lens with zoom range from 24-70mm F1.8/2.8. Will do very good in low light. The list goes on and on... I would've considered the Canon G7X as it seems to perform everything a tiny bit better and extra range to a 100mm, but without the EVF. Whenever i don't feel like hauling around my camera gear and arsenal of lens, this is truly a grab and go alternative, the size of this camera is amazing for the photo quality it takes. Yes no interchangable lens and lower range than my Canon 24-105mm & definitely no 70-200mm, but for day to day 24-70mm on the Sony is adequate. Great camera to take on more adventurous outings such as disney, long hikes, etc due to size and overall great performance

Cons: Well.. for a compact digital camera, it ain't cheap at all. At $800, it is quite hefty and is just as expensive as the Sigma Lens. Will still not have the wide angle ability of the Sigma lens too. Also long term reliability is always an issue with compact camera's, and for that price its definitely a consideration. Also, sadly, its build in China (yes, chinese build and produced products have come a long way and have been much nicer, but still... much rather it came from the motherland of Japan for their more stringent QA). Also, eventually, I will still probably have to pick up the Sigma 18-35mm F/1.8 since it is a legend and eventually I really do want that low light and wide angle lens in my arsenal. Lastly, seems like Sony is coming out with a newer and better version of the RX100 every year, if the next RX100 decided to have the max range of 100mm (like its arch rival the Canon G7X) vs the current 70mm, i will feel like i got ripped and i should've waited (not that the range matters TOO much, but if this is a grab and go camera, more reach is always better).

SO better question will probably which should I get FIRST I suppose?!??? If you were in my position, which would you personally buy first? Thanks for reading this long post and cheers!!

ps, This year I will be doing road trip from Vancouver Canada down to California. Going to visit all the tourist-sy places and do lots of sight seeing.

[druu]

though the sigma is nice, the ~28mm FOV is not ultrawide. I would even consider selling both bodies and the grip and buying a 6D since the deals are so ridiculous right now. If you did that your focal length desires would be fulfilled, and you would have full frame and that depth of field.

Otherwise i say go for your rx100 III over the sigma.

[kaede]

Originally Posted by druu

though the sigma is nice, the ~28mm FOV is not ultrawide. I would even consider selling both bodies and the grip and buying a 6D since the deals are so ridiculous right now. If you did that your focal length desires would be fulfilled, and you would have full frame and that depth of field.

Otherwise i say go for your rx100 III over the sigma.

Thanks! For most applications the sigma at 18mm (equivalent of 28mm on APS-C) will give me enough wide'ness. Therefore the Sony RX100M3 will definitely be wider at 24mm (no crop applicable).

You do have a good point, I can get myself a full frame and the Canon 6D is absolutely a steal at some of the going current prices. Decisions... hmmmm.

[yakuza70]

I used to carry my DSLR (Nikon D7000 w/battery grip, 17-35 2.8 lens, fisheye lens, 80-200 2.8, flash, laptop, etc.) wherever I went on vacation. My carry on bag was my camera bag and it was pretty massive and heavy.

Maybe it's just that I'm getting older, but once I got my RX100 mIII, I've barely used my DSLR. It's just so easy and light to carry around with my hands pretty much free and my back is no longer sore. I can just enjoy the vacation without worrying about the camera gear. There were times I didn't bring my DSLR to places on vacation because I didn't want the burden of a big heavy camera. The RX100 went everywhere with me.

Is the overall quality as good as my DSLR? No but I had shots that I would never had been able to take since it was always with me. The RX100 mIII quality is pretty stellar and is the a near perfect travel camera.

[Jimminez]

I purchased an RX-100 v1 a few years ago since I wanted something more compact to have as a handy camera for family trips. I found myself using it more than the DSLR in those situations after a few uses. It really does a great job and takes excellent images especially the camera jpegs.

Yes it's a pricey camera but you probably can find a used v1 or v2 for a good price and will take care of what you're looking for.

[druu]

i switched to fuji for travel, less is more. Just came back from asia and shot exclusively on a 53mm equivalent. I don't miss the extra weight unless i'm being paid to shoot.

[kaede]

Originally Posted by Jimminez

I purchased an RX-100 v1 a few years ago since I wanted something more compact to have as a handy camera for family trips. I found myself using it more than the DSLR in those situations after a few uses. It really does a great job and takes excellent images especially the camera jpegs.

Yes it's a pricey camera but you probably can find a used v1 or v2 for a good price and will take care of what you're looking for.

Thanks!!

The mk1 & mk2 is still selling for quite expensive around my area used. Might as well pay a bit more for the better lens and the EVF (part of the reason why i like the mk3 is because of the build in EVF).

I know I will love using the Rx100m3 if i do end up picking it up. And like you, I will for sure find myself carrying that around much more than the DSLRs. I guess one of the considerations is also if i do get the Sony, i will feel that i am putting my DSLR gears to waste...

I am leaning towards picking up the RX100 for right now, seems more logical especially i AM looking for camera that i need to use for travelling purposes.

[kaede]

Originally Posted by druu

i switched to fuji for travel, less is more. Just came back from asia and shot exclusively on a 53mm equivalent. I don't miss the extra weight unless i'm being paid to shoot.

Partly why i want to RX100 is because of the ability to zoom. Still have a fast aperture throughout its range. Also it is true 24-70mm not cropped, so will give my better flexibility.

Which Fuji did you use? I am always looking for alternatives as well =) Thanks!!

[Trijicon]

I would get the RX100. In addition to what the others have said, you get all the cool in app gadgets, wifi, nfc, etc.

OR go to the dark side and switch to FF mirrors (Sony A7)

[druu]

Originally Posted by kaede

Partly why i want to RX100 is because of the ability to zoom. Still have a fast aperture throughout its range. Also it is true 24-70mm not cropped, so will give my better flexibility.

Which Fuji did you use? I am always looking for alternatives as well =) Thanks!!

i had the original x100 for a long time, i switched to the xe1 and with a few primes its spectacular. The kit lens that comes with it 18-55 f 2.8-4 is also super super sharp. Ultimately i sold it in my quest for primes, but the x-e1 or even x-e2 + kit or some prime can be had for the cost of a rx100 iii usually.

I just got back from asia using only the 35mm 1.4 (53mm equivalent) and it was very liberating in addition to being lots of fun.

[kaede]

Originally Posted by druu

i had the original x100 for a long time, i switched to the xe1 and with a few primes its spectacular. The kit lens that comes with it 18-55 f 2.8-4 is also super super sharp. Ultimately i sold it in my quest for primes, but the x-e1 or even x-e2 + kit or some prime can be had for the cost of a rx100 iii usually.

I just got back from asia using only the 35mm 1.4 (53mm equivalent) and it was very liberating in addition to being lots of fun.

Thanks!! Will definitely consider it! But I am quite certain I don't want to get into the mirrorless camera too because i will end up spending even more money on Lens and gear xD

On a side note, it is almost the middle of the year, and the Sony Rx100 always launches a refresh around may or june. Maybe i should wait until then and see what the Rx100m4 have to offer. Besides, once a mk.4 is announced, the mk.3 will almost certainly drop in price saving me some $$$.

[druu]

Originally Posted by kaede

Thanks!! Will definitely consider it! But I am quite certain I don't want to get into the mirrorless camera too because i will end up spending even more money on Lens and gear xD

On a side note, it is almost the middle of the year, and the Sony Rx100 always launches a refresh around may or june. Maybe i should wait until then and see what the Rx100m4 have to offer. Besides, once a mk.4 is announced, the mk.3 will almost certainly drop in price saving me some $$$.

I feel like sony never truly discounts their stuff. New models seem to come out at higher premiums to the older stuff. might be a 50-100$ drop at most. They're definitely not like canon or nikon when it comes to new vs old gear prices.

[kaede]

The lowest price Rx100 Mk.1 brand new is around $305 I found, and the Mk.2 is around $465 brand new, and Mk.3 is $620 brand new.

Keep in mind all of them came out with around the same MSRP (Around $700). So if the mk.4 comes out, the mk.3 might drop to sub $500 which is quite a substantial savings =D

But you are correct, Sony always charges a PREMIUM on their gadgets and accessories. =/