Which Sigma 10-20mm is better for a Nikon D90: f/4-5.6 or constant f/3.5?
Asked 2/18/2012
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m choosing a wide-angle lens for a Nikon D90 and have narrowed it down to two Sigma options: the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM and the 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM. I know the f/3.5 version is faster and slightly more expensive, but what are the practical advantages and trade-offs beyond the wider maximum aperture? I’m especially interested in differences in image quality, distortion, corner sharpness, chromatic aberration, and flare.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
1
I have borrowed the f/4-5.6 version for some landscapes, but I don't know anything about the new version other than what I've read in reviews.
The original version had quite a bit of distortion at 10mm. From what I can read from reviews (for example this one), the distortion remains (comparison here) and is more complex. This review calls the f/3.5 a "mushy blur" in the corners. Compare that to the f/4-5.6 MTF charts by the same reviewer here where the resolution figures are almost double at 10mm in the extreme corners.
Looking at Sigma's own data on the f/3.5 and f/4-5.6, the optical design looks very similar in configuration, but they have added more ED (low dispersion) type glass, which may reduce chromatic aberration and flare.
From the looks of things, it appears that the main difference really is just that fixed, faster aperture, and some possible variances in distortion and sharpness, which could be important to you if you take lots of pictures of test charts :) If doing outdoor photography and stopping down the lens, there probably isn't much between them. If you do some low light shooting, especially at 20mm, the wider aperture will obviously be helpful.
Originally by user4191. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user4191
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The main advantage of the 10-20mm f/3.5 is its constant, slightly faster maximum aperture. That can help a bit in low light and keeps exposure settings consistent through the zoom range.
From the shared reviews, though, the f/3.5 version does not appear to be a clear optical upgrade. The older f/4-5.6 version was reported to have noticeable distortion at 10mm, and the f/3.5 still has distortion there as well, possibly in a more complex pattern. Some reviewers also found the f/3.5 weaker in the extreme corners at 10mm, while the f/4-5.6 may be sharper there.
Sigma’s design for the f/3.5 includes more low-dispersion glass, which may help reduce chromatic aberration and flare.
So the trade-off is basically:
- f/3.5: constant faster aperture, possible CA/flare improvements
- f/4-5.6: potentially better corner sharpness, especially at the wide end
If you mainly shoot landscapes stopped down, the f/4-5.6 may be the better value. If you want the convenience of a constant aperture, the f/3.5 is the reason to choose it.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why are my older Sigma lenses not autofocusing properly on a Nikon D5300?
What are good ultra-wide lens alternatives to the Sigma 10-20mm for a Nikon D90 around a $500 budget?
Why does my Sigma 10-20mm freeze or stop the shutter on a Nikon D7100?
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM vs Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D: which focuses faster on a Nikon D90 for sports?
Nikon D90 vs D7000 as an upgrade from a D80 for landscape and wildlife