Sigma 10-20mm f3.5 vs f4-5.6 - which should I get?

J

jrsteeve

Suspended / Banned
Messages
20
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok i'm a bit of a noob but i'm shooting mostly interior property shots for my web based lettings & sales company. The dpreview page for the f3.5 says its ideal for interior shots, is this true and would it be significantly better? I'll be using it with a Canon 40D.

Any help much appreciated :)
 
Get Canon 10-22mm, leave sigma alone. Canon is much sharper and has perfect geometry at 10mm. It doesn't cost much more and you'll make it back in a couple days.

f/3.5 vs f4 is not important as you should be at f/8-16, ISO 100 and using tripod.
 
daugirdas said:
Get Canon 10-22mm, leave sigma alone. Canon is much sharper and has perfect geometry at 10mm. It doesn't cost much more and you'll make it back in a couple days.

f/3.5 vs f4 is not important as you should be at f/8-16, ISO 100 and using tripod.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much! Will have a look :)
 
daugirdas said:
Get Canon 10-22mm, leave sigma alone. Canon is much sharper and has perfect geometry at 10mm. It doesn't cost much more and you'll make it back in a couple days.
.
Click to expand...

jrsteeve said:
i'm shooting mostly interior property shots for my web based lettings & sales company. The Any help much appreciated :)
Click to expand...

At that size of shot you'll not see any difference at all. Save your £220, get the Sigma :thumbs:
 
I own a sigma 10 20 and as far as i'm concerned it is a very good lens
the pics i have taken with it are sharp and very little distortion at the wide end
 
I recently saw a test between many lens of that size and between the Sigmas the f4-5.6 was the one recommended above the f3.5 version. The Canon came out well also.
 
I also own a Sigma 10-20mm it is a nice sharp lens and from what I have seen very little difference in the distortion. Obviously the faster f3.5 is the option to go for indoor work.
 
I'd recommend the Sigma f4-5.6. From what I have seen it is actaully sharper than the f3.5 version and a good £250 cheaper than the Canon, with no noticeable difference in quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top