Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 vs 4-5.6, which is better for night photography?

Frostlord

Frostlord

Suspended / Banned
Messages
14
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys, I was going to buy myself a sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 because I was hoping to do some night photography, but I heard the newer 3.5 would be a better choice.

Does anyone know if there will be a major difference in the two if I'm doing a lot of night photography ie. Milky way and Aurora Borealis?

I'm not sure if it will be a big enough difference between the two to justify the extra money for the newer model.

Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks
 
I've the 4-5.6 version and it's a great lens and for what I use it for, I don't need the F3.5, so I'd recommend it...
 
If you Google these two lenses they both have their fans and detractors. I would say that for what you want, night photography, there will be no difference.
I have the older version and think it's fine
 
Swissy said:
If you Google these two lenses they both have their fans and detractors. I would say that for what you want, night photography, there will be no difference.
I have the older version and think it's fine
Click to expand...

I have read a few reviews and you are right about them both having fans and detractors.

But I haven't heard anyone compare if there is much of a difference for night photography
 
Well, for night photography you really want as fast a lens as possible so the f/3.5 would be the sensible choice.

And in which case look at the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which is fantastic if you can live with the limited focal range.
 
Nawty said:
And in which case look at the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which is fantastic if you can live with the limited focal range.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was going to post if your looking to photograph big night skies on a crop the 11-16mm is the standout contender!
 
When I first bought the Sigma 10-20mm it was for light painting so wasn't interested in the faster more expensive f3.5 but now into night and astro I wish I had got the f3.5. That's still quite slow and you would be hard pressed to get a meteor with it. I now have the mentioned Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 Mk II and it's great for night/wide field astro but if there are any bright light sources in your shot then the flare is worse than the Siggy.
 
...because speed counts with long exposure.

If an exposure takes 4 minutes at f/2.8 it will take 8 minutes at f/4 and 16 minutes at f/5.6 - these times expand exponentially so for night photography you want fast glass.
 
Nawty said:
...because speed counts with long exposure.

If an exposure takes 4 minutes at f/2.8 it will take 8 minutes at f/4 and 16 minutes at f/5.6 - these times expand exponentially so for night photography you want fast glass.
Click to expand...

I do agree but when shooting stars its more important to have a fast lens to bring down the ISO, shutter speed is limited to the 500 rule (350 rule on a crop body) :)
 
Phil-D said:
I do agree but when shooting stars its more important to have a fast lens to bring down the ISO, shutter speed is limited to the 500 rule (350 rule on a crop body) :)
Click to expand...

Yes, you could equally reverse what I said as if you are trying to do milky-way shots without star trails then you need fast glass or the stars look like short lines.

Basically, at night you want FAST.
 
Nawty said:
Yes, you could equally reverse what I said as if you are trying to do milky-way shots without star trails then you need fast glass or the stars look like short lines.

Basically, at night you want FAST.
Click to expand...

Actually Ned, I wrote that for the benefit of the OP, I should have made it clearer :)
 
Thanks for the advice guys. I have heard the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is really good, but I was hoping to get the Sigma 10-20mm.

So what do you guys think? should i forget about getting either Sigma lens and buy the Tokina instead, or is it still possible to get some decent night photos with the 3.5 or even the 4-5.6?
 
If you're going to take sky at night get the 2.8 first time will save you trading up when you realise you were wrong!
 
a1ex2001 said:
If you're going to take sky at night get the 2.8 first time will save you trading up when you realise you were wrong!
Click to expand...

I've been having a look at reviews and I think I might have changed my mind into getting the Tokina
 
pingu666 said:
isnt there a fast samyang wide prime?
Click to expand...
Samyang do some great fast wide primes but I wouldn't bother on a crop sensor, you get a lot of extra hassle with bulbous front elements and manual focus and you don't get any wider than the tokina which is compatible with filters and has AF oh and isn't much if anymore expensive!
 
Frostlord said:
I've been having a look at reviews and I think I might have changed my mind into getting the Tokina
Click to expand...
The Tokina is a great lens, very good build quality, great wide open at f2.8 and imo great value. I had one and found it to be an invaluable piece of kit.
 
Thanks for the advice guys, having a look around for a Tokina now. Any idea if there is any major differences between the DX and the DX2?
 
Frostlord said:
Thanks for the advice guys, having a look around for a Tokina now. Any idea if there is any major differences between the DX and the DX2?
Click to expand...
The mkii has improved coatings and importantly for Nikon, the new internal silent focussing motor so mkii would be a better buy imo.
 
Wise choice. I have both and for night/astro the Tokina is on the camera 90% of the time. Much better off losing a few mm and gaining the f2.8. And from earlier a good price from HDEW cameras.
 
Quick question. Do you guys think £250 (about $350) is too much to pay for a second hand one in like new condition with the box and everything?
 
I would say that's about right if it is in like new condition as the UK models are around £100 more when purchased new. Is it a private deal or a dealer as you may get warranty if it is from a dealer.
As previously mentioned, you can get a new one with warranty from Hdew, a very good and well used UK based 'grey' importer. The have a very good reputation and you then have peace of mind knowing that if anything went wrong you're covered.
Having said that, most of us have bought secondhand lenses with no problems so you should be ok.
I guess it's up to you, secondhand to save £45 or pay the £295 at Hdew and know you have protection.
 
wardy07 said:
I would say that's about right if it is in like new condition as the UK models are around £100 more when purchased new. Is it a private deal or a dealer as you may get warranty if it is from a dealer.
As previously mentioned, you can get a new one with warranty from Hdew, a very good and well used UK based 'grey' importer. The have a very good reputation and you then have peace of mind knowing that if anything went wrong you're covered.
Having said that, most of us have bought secondhand lenses with no problems so you should be ok.
I guess it's up to you, secondhand to save £45 or pay the £295 at Hdew and know you have protection.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.
Its from a private dealer so it wouldn't come with a warranty.
Should I be cautious if I buy a second hand lens?
If so I'll probably just buy it from that Hdew store you mentioned.
 
Frostlord said:
Thanks for that.
Its from a private dealer so it wouldn't come with a warranty.
Should I be cautious if I buy a second hand lens?
If so I'll probably just buy it from that Hdew store you mentioned.
Click to expand...
I guess it's always best to be cautious on anything secondhand - I personally would be happier buying new given the small difference in price that's all. If it was a huge saving that would be a different matter but for £45, I would rather have peace of mind but it is only my personal opinion and in no way would I want to persuade you either way.
If it's a reputable person and you have the option to return if you're not happy then secondhand is fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top