difference between 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM Lens and 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

L

looneytunez1024

Messages
1,193
Edit My Images
Yes
I bought and paid £499 for the 10-20mm f3.5 EX DC HSM Lens but have been sent the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM at a difference of £70

What exactly is the difference in order to charge the extra £70 and should i return the £429 version and get the £499 one or keep it and ask for a refund of the difference?
 
The difference is its f/3.5 throughout the zoom range, which IMHO is pointless as with a UWA you'd normally want to shoot above f/5.6 anyway.

Not worth the extra for the f3.5 version IMO, keep the one you have as long as they refund the difference!
 
odd jim said:
The difference is its f/3.5 throughout the zoom range, which IMHO is pointless as with a UWA you'd normally want to shoot above f/5.6 anyway.

Not worth the extra for the f3.5 version IMO, keep the one you have as long as they refund the difference!
Click to expand...

+1 :thumbs: I have the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM and I have never had a need for the faster f3.5, as Odd Jim said there is little advantage on an Ultra Wide Angle lens. DoF is huge anyway even at f3.5 and when shooting with a UWA fast apertures to keep shutter speed higher isnt really an issue either since they can be hand held at pretty slow shutter speeds without incurring camera shake. If there was a huge optical quality diference between the 2 then that would need to be taken in to account but any reviews Ive read don't bear that out. I would doubt that any optical advantage would be noticeable.

addendum: Point of consideration, are you planning on using the wide angle a lot in low light situations ? Just a thought since that would be the only advantage I could see for the faster lens.
 
Last edited:
I went for the F/4-5.6 as well, as I couldn't envisage ever needing to use it wide open anyway.
I bought mine locally from Harrisons in Sheffield and they agreed that not many go for the F3.5
Their price is also £399
Send it back get a refund, and order one from Harrisons and save a few quid.
 
I went for the f/3.5 version and wished I'd went for the f/4-5.6.

The filter size on the f/3.5 is 82mm which is my biggest gripe.

Stick with the cheaper version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top