Which Sigma 10-20mm?

Hi all, decided to go for the Sigma 10-20mm but cannot decide between the F 3.5 and the F 4-5.6?
The F3.5 is about £50 more I think but for landscape is it necessary? Should I maybe keep the £50 and spend it on some filters?
Thanks for any advice

I owned the f/3.5 for a couple months, and regrettably had to sell it for financial reasons. When I was looking for a UWA for my 50D I tried out this, the f/4.5-5.6, and Canon 10-22. If I was you, I would spend the extra money. It's worth it in all respects. This lens is tack sharp wide open and zoomed all the way out to 10mm. The Canon and variable aperture Siggy both seemed to be softer than the f/3.5.

The faster the better. Some pple will told you constant 3.5 is useless since you never use it on a wide angle lens...Wonder why the 24L and 35L are so popular then.

Anyway I love this lens (3.5), very fast focus and very sharp out of the box.

But I think I might sell it to get the tokina 11-16, I'd like something faster and don't realy need the 17-20.

TheAnt wrote in post #10848394
I would spend the extra money. It's worth it in all respects.

Do you mean the extra on the sigma or on the canon?

wask_ wrote in post #10848530
The faster the better. Some pple will told you constant 3.5 is useless since you never use it on a wide angle lens...Wonder why the 24L and 35L are so popular then.

Anyway I love this lens (3.5), very fast focus and very sharp out of the box.

But I think I might sell it to get the tokina 11-16, I'd like something faster and don't realy need the 17-20.

there's quite a difference between f1.4, and f3.5...and also quite a difference between 10mm, and 24mm/35mm...


i'd save the money personally...either one will give you great shots though

for the cost of the sigma 3.5, go with the canon 10-22

I have the 10-20 f/4-5.6 and I love the lens. The extra 1/3 stop constant aperture wasn't enough for me to justify an extra $200. Even if I found $200 laying on the ground I probably would have stuck with this lens and put that money toward something else. Now if I had won the lottery or something I certainly would have gone with the 3.5

I was gonna grab a 10-22 but grabbed the variable aperture Siggie.....I love it...I use it pretty much exclusively for landscape so the aperture really doesn't make a difference. If we were talking 2.8, then I could see wanting an extra stop or 2. I'd save for the 10-22 or just grab an inexpensive 4-5.6....it's a great little lens

Ferco wrote in post #10849222
Do you mean the extra on the sigma or on the canon?

The Siggy. I tried four different copies of the 10-22 at the shop and all of them came out softer than the Siggy.

Awesome the Siggy it is thanks all

The f3.5 is in most tests a poorer lens than the f4-5.6, unless your using it wide open in which case its a nobrainer...

Mine is used almost exclusivly 10-12mm and f7-f8 I would get no benefit from the f4.5 one

theelectrician wrote in post #10849824
I have the 10-20 f/4-5.6 and I love the lens. The extra 1/3 stop constant aperture wasn't enough for me to justify an extra $200. Even if I found $200 laying on the ground I probably would have stuck with this lens and put that money toward something else. Now if I had won the lottery or something I certainly would have gone with the 3.5

LOL...if i'd ever won the lottery i would'nt be purchasing any of em, i'd be going all full frame and the top L's...

DreDaze wrote in post #10849682
there's quite a difference between f1.4, and f3.5...and also quite a difference between 10mm, and 24mm/35mm...


i'd save the money personally...either one will give you great shots though

15mm on a crop body = 24 on FF.