Question .... what to buy

[ACrossley]

Hey guys,
I have received great feedback on the wide angle lenses I am considering. I have one more question before this next purchase.

One lens is 11-16 with a 2.8 (Tokina) and the other is 11-20 with a 3.5 (Sigma). I have received most positive details on Tokina's lens, but i have never heard of that brand. It is also a little bit more than the Sigma.

How big of a difference will the 2.8 have over the 3.5? I am looking at a tremendous increase in light availability (when unavailable)? Will this really impact my flexibility in low light situations?

Thanks for all the feedback. You guys know it is difficult deciding on equipment investments! Big decisions

Thanks,
Alisha

 

[FrankLamont]

Tokina... you've never heard of it?

Well, I'll be bound! Needless, to say... Tokina was founded by a group of Nikon engineers who left Nikon to concentrate on the development of high-quality zoom lenses. Excerpt from Wikipedia. And possibly, they make the best third party lenses. Mostly, although their prices are similar to originals... they are equal and/or better than the originals at times. Most times.

The f/2.8 makes a world of difference. ESPECIALLY in low light!

 

[ACrossley]

Tokina... you've never heard of it?

Well, I'll be bound! Needless, to say... Tokina was founded by a group of Nikon engineers who left Nikon to concentrate on the development of high-quality zoom lenses. Excerpt from Wikipedia. And possibly, they make the best third party lenses. Mostly, although their prices are similar to originals... they are equal and/or better than the originals at times. Most times.

The f/2.8 makes a world of difference. ESPECIALLY in low light!

WONDERFUL!! This was the feedback I needed to make my decision. I have always been around Canons myself .... purchased some Sigma and really have not researched any other brands.

THANKS a ton!

 

[Gaerek]

If low light shooting is more important than the extra bit of zoom range, the 2.8 will make a world of difference over the 3.5. Also, if those are the lenses I'm thinking of, the 2.8 will remain 2.8 through the entire focal range but the 3.5 will stop down to (I think) 5.6 as you zoom in. I could be wrong on that point, just going from what I remember. You'll need to make sure that's the case when purchasing the lens. If I am right, then 2.8 is most certainly going to be better for you than 5.6.

 

[FrankLamont]

Sorry, not right. It's just rare to find a constant max. of f/3.5 on a lens.

Normally, it goes to f/5.6 (or thereabouts) on a cheaper lens.

Such as kit lenses, etc; say, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. Means that at 18mm, the max aperture is f/3.5, and 55mm max aperture is at f/5.6. Which isn't great, which is why better lenses have a constant max aperture.

 

[Dao]

If low light shooting is more important than the extra bit of zoom range, the 2.8 will make a world of difference over the 3.5. Also, if those are the lenses I'm thinking of, the 2.8 will remain 2.8 through the entire focal range but the 3.5 will stop down to (I think) 5.6 as you zoom in. I could be wrong on that point, just going from what I remember. You'll need to make sure that's the case when purchasing the lens. If I am right, then 2.8 is most certainly going to be better for you than 5.6.

Sigma release a new version of their 10-20mm lens recently that has a constant aperture of F/3.5.

To OP:
Since the Sigma lens is so new. And that is why you do not see much review on that lens yet.

Also, if the primary purpose of using the ultra wide lens is shooting wide view landscape type short. I will think F/2.8 and F/3.5 will not make too much different since it is better to have the camera on the tripod for that type of shots. And the usually you prefer deeper DoF anyway and is usually focus on a object farther away or at infinity.