I've used both these lenses for years on various Sony bodies. To be blunt, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 DG DN Art is the better lens optically, but it might push your budget. If you can find a used one near $1k, jump on it. In Zion, you're gonna want that extra 2mm at the wide end for the scale of the cliffs. The Art is incredibly sharp across the frame and the weather sealing is much more reliable for dusty environments. The Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary is a different beast. It's way lighter and easier to carry up something like Angels Landing. It also takes 72mm front filters which is much simpler than the rear-filter setup on the 14-24. You'll see a bit more distortion and the corners arent quite as crisp as your old GM, but for a $900 lens, it performs well. If the $1k is a hard limit and you need it fast, the 16-28 is likely the one you'll end up with. It's a solid choice, just dont expect it to match the Art for those big, detailed vistas. The Art is worth the weight if you prioritize image quality over everything else, but the Contemporary is way more practical for long hiking days...

Been thinking about your Zion trip... I carried a heavy rig through The Narrows once and it was pretty rough on the back. The Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary is a decent option that fits your budget perfectly.

• Light enough for long hikes
• Standard 72mm filter threads
• Internal zoom mechanism The Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG DN Art is also worth a look if you prioritize sharpness for those canyon walls.

Just found this thread and I agree that weight is a huge factor for those long hikes. I've been really satisfied with the Sigma 17mm f/4 DG DN Contemporary for landscape work lately. It's a cost-effective choice that fits your budget perfectly.

• Superior sharpness for canyon walls
• Significant weight savings over zooms
• Solid metal build quality It works well for Zion without breaking the bank.