Sigma 10-20 question

D

Doog

Messages
1,812
Name
Dougie
Edit My Images
Yes
Browsing the bay I notice the there are two versions of this lens, f3.5 and 4.

There's a marked difference in price too. Is the f3.5 so much better than the other?
 
Thanks for that link. The Sigma gets a good write up whenever I see it mentioned. I haven't heard so much about the Tokina.:thinking:
 
The newer version is F3.5, but has a price tag to go with it as you say, from reviews I've read - mixed responses, yes it's very nice, but the F4-5.6 is very good.

I've the F4-5.6 and am very pleased with the results, when I got mine, I couldn't justify the extra for the Canon as it doesn't get a huge amount of use.
 
andyred said:
The newer version is F3.5, but has a price tag to go with it as you say, from reviews I've read - mixed responses, yes it's very nice, but the F4-5.6 is very good.

I've the F4-5.6 and am very pleased with the results, when I got mine, I couldn't justify the extra for the Canon as it doesn't get a huge amount of use.
Click to expand...

:plusone:

I looked at the Canon and the Siggy F3.5 and couldnt justify the price and I am very happy with the Sigma F4-5.6.
 
Doog said:
Browsing the bay I notice the there are two versions of this lens, f3.5 and 4.

There's a marked difference in price too. Is the f3.5 so much better than the other?
Click to expand...

The price tag is high for 3.5 just because of fixed focal length. A little faster and f/3.5 throughout the whole zoom range. The larger aperture of course means the lens itself has become larger and heavier, as well as more expensive than its slower sibling. ( f 4 to 5.6)

But for landscape photography, you may not require the little faster feature.
 
Good points about the amount of use and not maybe needing faster for landscapes. I think this may be my next lens. Thanks:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top