Which Sigma 10-20mm is better optically
- Thread starter PsiFox
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens - Seems to review much better.
I think the decision really comes down to what your going to shoot, if it is all static landscapes then get the lens above it's sharper and you don't need the speed. If you going to be doing some creative UWA stuff be it portraits or urban sports then you might find the extra speed and constant aperture appealing!
I think the decision really comes down to what your going to shoot, if it is all static landscapes then get the lens above it's sharper and you don't need the speed. If you going to be doing some creative UWA stuff be it portraits or urban sports then you might find the extra speed and constant aperture appealing!
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6
I had the 10-20 f/3.5 (naturally it was faulty out of the box)
Sigma's own MTF charts show the older lens has better performance at the edges.
I think the f/3.5 version was more about marketing.. probably as Tokina and Nikon did f/4 wides, so it was more about marketing rather than optics.
I had the 10-20 f/3.5 (naturally it was faulty out of the box)
Sigma's own MTF charts show the older lens has better performance at the edges.
I think the f/3.5 version was more about marketing.. probably as Tokina and Nikon did f/4 wides, so it was more about marketing rather than optics.
- Messages
- 3,780
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indoor use with available light or will you be bringing your own? If your bringing your own stick with the variable aperture.
OP
PsiFox
Prefers Mac over PC any day
- Messages
- 7,240
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wherever it goes at least 1 SB900 will go to, as for availble light if good and even then yes, if not flash will be used.
If your wanting a large depth of field you won't be needign the larger aperture, so go for the variable version and save a few quid. I had one and was very happy with it good sharpness and colour, at 10-14mm the distorsion is visable but is easily corrected.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
On a lens as wide as the Sigma there is going to be hardly any difference between f/3.5, f/4 or f/5.6 in terms of practical DOF. for background blurring, I'd find myself using it at 20mm rathern than 10mm, despite 20mm being a stop slower, it was easier to blur the background. the f/3.5 will be slightly better in low light, but really it comes down to splitting hairs at such short focal lengths.
The following photograph was taken with the variable aperture Sigma in almost pitch black darkness:
...hand held.
OP
PsiFox
Prefers Mac over PC any day
- Messages
- 7,240
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On a lens as wide as the Sigma there is going to be hardly any difference between f/3.5, f/4 or f/5.6 in terms of practical DOF. for background blurring, I'd find myself using it at 20mm rathern than 10mm, despite 20mm being a stop slower, it was easier to blur the background. the f/3.5 will be slightly better in low light, but really it comes down to splitting hairs at such short focal lengths.
The following photograph was taken with the variable aperture Sigma in almost pitch black darkness:
...hand held.
I won't be wanting background blurring. I will be wanting a sharp image across the frame.
The price difference between the 2 is not great so I just want to get the better one.