Sigma 10-20 F3.5 or 4-5.6

P

Pablo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
87
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
As the title says, I'm thinking of taking the plunge and buying the Sigma 10-20mm for my D300. The question is will the 4-5.6 suffice or is the 3.5 really worth the extra money especially as it requires an 82mm filter.
 
For shooting landscapes I don't know anyone who shoots at f 3.5
 
I think the older slower lens is supposed to be optically better than the newer faster one.
 
Another vote for the f4-5.6 lens. I've the Canon fit one and am very pleased with it. I've read reports comparing the 2 and depending which one you read depends which gets the win, although it always seems to be very close.

I'd be saving some money and buying the f4-5.6 lens
 
Yet another vote for the older copy. Very pleased with mine when I shot Canon. It now sits on my Sister in Laws 1000D. She loves it too.
 
I love my 4.5-5.6 lens, I have never shot a landscape wide open so not really sure I'd benefit much from the 3.5. The pictures from my lens are extremely sharp and I'd definitely recommend it for the price you can pick one up for.
 
Really helpful thread, as I was in the same quandry. Cheers, Hugh
 
Thanks guys looks like the decision is made. The older cheaper model it is then.
 
huma11 said:
Really helpful thread, as I was in the same quandry. Cheers, Hugh
Click to expand...

Indeed. I've asked so many questions about various lenses on this forum I almost didn't dare ask this one as well. So glad somebody else has.
 
There's nothing wrong with asking. If i had experience of a certain lens etc i'd be only too happy to give my thoughts. Ive managed to arrange the loan of a sigma 10-20 so that will be a massive help before i part with the cash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top