Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC HSM vs Sigma 10-20 f3.5 EX DC HSM
Dec 27, 2014 19:11:33 #
sodacreek
Loc: Ocala, FL
I presently have a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 lens that I use on my Canon 50D. My question is just what will the 10-20 f3.5 give me that I do not get with the f4-5.6 lens.
I mainly shoot landscape and would like to get an even wider perspective.
Please excuse my ignorance as I am still learning about lenses.
I mainly shoot landscape and would like to get an even wider perspective.
Please excuse my ignorance as I am still learning about lenses.
Dec 27, 2014 19:22:38 #
Angle of view may be the same, check specs for it. f3.5 will do better in low light.
Dec 27, 2014 19:26:33 #
[quote=sodacreek... My question is just what will the 10-20 f3.5 give me that I do not get with the f4-5.6 lens......[/quote]
constant aperture
constant aperture
Dec 27, 2014 20:22:15 #
sodacreek
Loc: Ocala, FL
lightcatcher wrote:
Angle of view may be the same, check specs for it. f3.5 will do better in low light.
The f4-5.6 has an angle of view of 102-54 degrees with the f3.5 at 103-64 degrees.
Dec 28, 2014 06:45:43 #
not much,the lower f/s will let you shoot in lower light,but normally not an issue shooting landscape,
Dec 28, 2014 18:26:18 #
I purchased the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 EX DC HSM two months ago after reading a super wide angle lens test in Digital Camera.
You will not see any discernable difference in field of view.
Focusing is slightly faster with the f3.5 but as you are mainly shooting landscapes this is not really a factor, neither is the f3.5 aperture if you are using a tripod. The slightly faster aperture will be appreciated if you are using it for starscapes.
The HSM aspect will mean it is near silent in focusing but I've never known a little bit of noise scaring the hills away.
The only benefit is the uprated lens coating, would I have purchased it just for the slight upgrade in lens coating if that was the only factor? No but as I intend to use it mainly for capturing starscapes then that plus the faster aperture swung it for me, the other improvements are a bonus.
If you have the earlier lens then it is a little expensive for minor improvements.
Either lens is a great choice.
You will not see any discernable difference in field of view.
Focusing is slightly faster with the f3.5 but as you are mainly shooting landscapes this is not really a factor, neither is the f3.5 aperture if you are using a tripod. The slightly faster aperture will be appreciated if you are using it for starscapes.
The HSM aspect will mean it is near silent in focusing but I've never known a little bit of noise scaring the hills away.
The only benefit is the uprated lens coating, would I have purchased it just for the slight upgrade in lens coating if that was the only factor? No but as I intend to use it mainly for capturing starscapes then that plus the faster aperture swung it for me, the other improvements are a bonus.
If you have the earlier lens then it is a little expensive for minor improvements.
Either lens is a great choice.
Dec 28, 2014 18:39:46 #
sodacreek
Loc: Ocala, FL
Carl 383 wrote:
I purchased the Sigma 10-20 f3.5 EX DC HSM two mon... (show quote)
Thank you very much for the response. Based on the feedback, I think I will just stay with my f4-5.6 and rather spend my money on the new Canon 7d Mark II.
Dec 28, 2014 19:00:45 #
sodacreek wrote:
Thank you very much for the response. Based on the feedback, I think I will just stay with my f4-5.6 and rather spend my money on the new Canon 7d Mark II.
An excellent choice. (Says a Sony shooter)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.