2 Sigmas 10-20mm: f/4-5.6 or f3.5 - which one to choose?

camcam123 · Dec 19, 2009

I have just discovered that there are 2 wide angle Sigma cameras available: \

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 10-20mm f3.5

I will be taking interior real estate shots of living rooms, bedrooms etc to post on our co's web-site. I do not quite understand what this "f" factor is about (I don't understand about ISO either). I will take pictures in the best light conditions available, only during the day, the sunnier the better. Some rooms have floor-to-ceiling windows and excellent light, some don't. I do not plan to use flash - so whatever the camera+lens+best available light can give me, this is what will have to do.
I read somewhere that f3.5 lens is meant for interior shots. Is it true?

Does it also mean that pict taken outside with f3.5 would be too bright? Is there a significant difference between the two lenses? If the difference is apparent only to a professional, then I'd rather go with f/4-5.6 version since it is less expensive (and then you can further work on photos in photoshop or other computer application).

On the other hand, if the difference in quality is significant, then I'd get this 3.5 lens. I wish I could see side by side photos taken with those 2 lenses so that I could see the difference!

I hope there is someone here who is familiar with these 2 lenses and can give me some advice.

I will be using this lens with D40 or maybe D50 or D40x (I haven't bought the camera yet)

JayCeKaden · Dec 19, 2009

camcam123 said:
I have just discovered that there are 2 wide angle Sigma cameras available: \

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5

There is also the 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. I only mention this because I own it. Also, I'm sure you meant to say Sigma lenses instead of sigma cameras.

camcam123 said:
I will be taking interior real estate shots of living rooms, bedrooms etc to post on our co's web-site. I do not quite understand what this "f" factor is about (I don't understand about ISO either). I will take pictures in the best light conditions available, only during the day, the sunnier the better. Some rooms have floor-to-ceiling windows and excellent light, some don't. I do not plan to use flash - so whatever the camera+lens+best available light can give me, this is what will have to do.

f is the lens aperture i.e. how much light the lens allows in. The smaller the f number, the more light is let in. ISO is the sensitivity of the camera sensor to light. The higher the ISO the greater sensitivity to light. Lower the light, higher the ISO, but you have to set that manually unless one of the cameras you suggest has auto ISO...then you dont have to worry about setting it.

camcam123 said:
I read somewhere that f3.5 lens is meant for interior shots. Is it true?

Not necessarily. 3.5 isn't "meant" for interior shots. It allow more light than a higher f number, but less than a lower f number. Generally for interior shots with low light you want a smaller f number. Remember lower the f number the more light is let into the lens. You want as low an f number as you can get for low light.

camcam123 said:
Does it also mean that pict taken outside with f3.5 would be too bright?

No. On a camera there is two (okay three counting ISO) ways of controlling light. The aperture ( "f number") and the shutter speed. In sunny conditions 3.5 would be coupled with a fast shutter speed. (Generally speaking...trying to keep this simple.)
Is there a significant difference between the two lenses?

If the difference is apparent only to a professional, then I'd rather go with f/4-5.6 version since it is less expensive (and then you can further work on photos in photoshop or other computer application).

The difference is the 3.5 has the minimum aperture of 3.5 throughout the entire zoom range, so whether the lens is at 10mm or 20mm or anything in between you can choose 3.5. Its hard to say but for what you need the lens for its probably best to have the most light you can get.

camcam123 said:
On the other hand, if the difference in quality is significant, then I'd get this 3.5 lens. I wish I could see side by side photos taken with those 2 lenses so that I could see the difference!

Don't know for sure but I would imagine the difference in quality is negligible.

camcam123 said:
I hope there is someone here who is familiar with these 2 lenses and can give me some advice.

I will be using this lens with D40 or maybe D50 or D40x (I haven't bought the camera yet)

So basically you want the lowest f number you can find for your interior shots. Maybe you don't need such a wide angle. Maybe 20mm is all you need. If thats the case, go for the 20mm f/2.8. Its a wide angle thats gonna let you maximize the available light.

Its kinda tough to explain all of this, but I did my best

gneil · Dec 19, 2009

I suggest you go to blogsearch.google.com and enter some terms like "real estate photography". Among the hits will be "photographyforrealestate.net" and they have a "lenses" discussion. Their FAQ and other discussions will discuss techniques specific to your field.

I did no investigation of the two lenses you asked about but I expect they will produce identical images for your purposes.

eddyshoots · Dec 19, 2009

camcam123 said:
I have just discovered that there are 2 wide angle Sigma cameras available: \

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6

Sigma 10-20mm f3.5

I will be taking interior real estate shots of living rooms, bedrooms etc to post on our co's web-site. I do not quite understand what this "f" factor is about (I don't understand about ISO either).

The F factor has to do with the size of the opening (aperture) that the lens will allow light to pass through. Geek alert! The number is derived from taking length of the lens and dividing by the maximum aperture that the lens. Similarly, you can calculate the size of the opening by dividing the length of the lens by the F factor. Your Sigma F3.5 @ 20mm has a maximum opening of 5.7mm (20/3.5=5.7). The cheaper one has an F5.6 @ 20mm so it's maximum opening is 3.5mm. A 5.7mm hole lets in a lot more light than a 3.5mm hole. That's what you are paying for with "faster" lenses. Now that you know this you can pretty much forget it. Remember that smaller F numbers equal bigger holes and more light. Use your camera to change the aperture and let the meter fix the shutter speed for you.

I will take pictures in the best light conditions available, only during the day, the sunnier the better. Some rooms have floor-to-ceiling windows and excellent light, some don't. I do not plan to use flash - so whatever the camera+lens+best available light can give me, this is what will have to do.

camcam123 said:
I read somewhere that f3.5 lens is meant for interior shots. Is it true?

Not really. F3.5 might still be too slow (not let in enough light) for some interiors but it is certainly better than 5.6.

camcam123 said:
Does it also mean that pict taken outside with f3.5 would be too bright?

No. If f3.5 were too bright out doors you can stop down (use the camera to choose a smaller aperture) to 5.6 or 8. All lenses can do this, you are not stuck with the f3.5.

Is there a significant difference between the two lenses? If the difference is apparent only to a professional, then I'd rather go with f/4-5.6 version since it is less expensive

If you are asking these questions then you probably will not notice the difference between the two lenses. It's really just pros and serious enthusiasts that feel the need for the fastest lens. Keep in mind, however, that you buy wide angle to use wide. At 10mm the two lenses are very close f3.5 and f4.0. The difference between 3.5 and 4.0 is nothing to worry about.

(and then you can further work on photos in photoshop or other computer application).

Nothing much you can do in photoshop to save a crappy image. If you get camera shake from using too slow a lens you are stuck with it.

camcam123 said:
On the other hand, if the difference in quality is significant, then I'd get this 3.5 lens. I wish I could see side by side photos taken with those 2 lenses so that I could see the difference!

I hope there is someone here who is familiar with these 2 lenses and can give me some advice.

I will be using this lens with D40 or maybe D50 or D40x (I haven't bought the camera yet)

You don't appear to be a photographer (yet!) so I'd just buy the least expensive of the lenses and the least expensive of the cameras you mention and be done with it. If you get bitten by the photography bug you can add to your camera bag or even sell old equipment to buy newer faster better stuff. You can cross that bridge when and if you get there.

eddyshoots

winparkman · Dec 19, 2009

I think this is a good place to ask the question. I do a lot of interior architecture shots and I am not a fan of the Sigmas for that sort of work. They distort quite a bit at 10mm. Before anyone gets upset, I love the lens outdoors for landscape shots.

I prefer to use the Tokina 12-24 for interior architecture. The distortion is far easier to control.

gneil said:
I suggest you go to blogsearch.google.com and enter some terms like "real estate photography". Among the hits will be "photographyforrealestate.net" and they have a "lenses" discussion. Their FAQ and other discussions will discuss techniques specific to your field.

I did no investigation of the two lenses you asked about but I expect they will produce identical images for your purposes.

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

DoninIndy666608 · Dec 19, 2009

The 10-20 f4-5.6 has its worst performance at 10mm. It has fairly high CA and also distortion at that focal length - though the distortion is mostly in the corners. it virtually clears up all focal length related issues at 11mm and beyond and becomes a respectable lens. There's a little bit of light falloff in the corners that clear up by the time you get to f8. I like mine.

Quash · Dec 19, 2009

Check out Scott Hargis real estate blog and other blog noted above.

Sounds like you're on a budget. If you tell us what it is maybe will can help build the best kit.

Finally, I would suggest you consider getting a flash. An SB-600 and the cheaper Sigma is a better solution than the more expensive sigma 3.5. It will let in more light but at a more shallow depth of field. For interiors of this sort, you want everything in focus which suggests the cheaper Sigma is good enough. Pointing an SB-600 flash in to a white ceiling will light up a room, which you know is far preferable to dark shots when selling property.

johnmcbay · Dec 19, 2009

Most of the info and suggestions here are good, but, I will suggest, with the utmost sincerity that you would be doing yourself a big favor by hiring a professional real estate photographer to shoot your listings. It is probably far less expensive than you think and the results will be far beyond anything you can achieve with the equipment you mentioned. The big issue is the tremendous range of light in a typical room, from brilliantly lit exterior to dark and shady corners of the room.

If you do go ahead with this, the advice to shoot when there is plenty of sunlight pouring into the room is exactly the wrong advice. Try to shoot near dawn or dusk or on a cloudy, overcast day.

I do this for a living, and I also use a Sigma 10-20. All I can tell you is that shooting real estate interiors that produce good results is significantly more difficult than most photographers (let alone amateurs) realize. I have a friend who is a very accomplished photographer (portraits and weddings). He once tried to shoot the interior of a home. He was not very happy with the result. Most RE photogs will use a number of ancillary light sources or extensive post-processing techniques, or both to produce nice images.

Go here to find a local RE photographer: http://photographyforrealestate.net/new-direct/

If you want to e-mail me at [email protected], I will ask around in the online group I belong to, to direct you to someone local.

Ronj2 · Dec 19, 2009

For Real Estate your probably going to be using F5.6 -F8 anyway so in most RE shots it won't matter. I use F5.6 -7.1 At ISO 400 most of the time for my RE photography with my Nkon 12-24 F4 lens.

For other types of photography I would recommend the fixed focal length lens as you don't want you exposure jumping all over the place as you adjust the zoom at F4 (even if it is only a small amount) while using manual mode.

Here is your best source for interior photography.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/photographyforrealestate/

--
Sincerely

Ron J

camcam123 · Dec 19, 2009

Thank you for all information.

What camera do you use: full platform or DSLR?

Because at 12+mm, this lens will be "only" 18mm wide on my Nikon SLR... From what I've read, they say there is this expensive 14mm fixed lens which is the "Rolls Royce" of real estate photography and otherwise the best average length is usually 16mm...

I understand whatever I've read on internet is subjective and depends what is the size of rooms the particular photographer usually takes photos of. But in the city, a room can be 10x9 - so what kind of wide angle do you need to capture that size? My current camera has 23mm wide angle and that is definitely not enough to show "whole" rooms.

I know I need to learn more about the subject.

camcam123 · Dec 19, 2009

winparkman said:
I think this is a good place to ask the question. I do a lot of interior architecture shots and I am not a fan of the Sigmas for that sort of work. They distort quite a bit at 10mm. Before anyone gets upset, I love the lens outdoors for landscape shots.

I prefer to use the Tokina 12-24 for interior architecture. The distortion is far easier to control.

Do you have a full platform camera or SLR? Can you take a good picture of a room that is 10 x 10 with this 12-24mm Tokina lens? Is there any data as to how wide a lens should be for specific room size?

camcam123 · Dec 19, 2009

Thank you so much! I have actually printed out what you wrote and I am going to keep it for my reference. As a person who never adjusted anything on any camera - I have a lot to learn.

camcam123 · Dec 19, 2009

Thanks! Once I sell something and finally make some money, I will probably follow your advice. The time that I spend on researching this entry-level equipment gets me a bit excited like when you are looking forward to something new - but on the other hand, it does give me a headache.

I love art and looking at images and I have a lot of respect for professionals - I actually sometimes browse photo galleries of professional photographers which are available online, it's better than going to a museum and I am often amazed at what they can do.

For the time being, though, I'll have to take care of business myself. Thanks again and happy holidays!

structuresguy · Dec 19, 2009

It is sharper, less expensive, smaller, lighter, and takes smaller, less expensive, and normally sized 77mm filters.

You don't need constant f/3.5 in an ultra wide zoom lens.

Marvin Thomas · Dec 19, 2009

You can try to find sample photos by looking at http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/sigma/ and at http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/10-20_4-56_ex_dc_hsm but I didn't find any galleries of photos taken with the f/3.5 lens.

winparkman · Dec 19, 2009

I don't know what you mean by full platform. This is a Nikon digital SLR forum for the D90 through to the D3000.

There is no magic lens in architecture and most realtors use point and shoots. Whether you choose the 10-20 or 12-24 or 11-16 or any other wide-angle, they are all going to do roughly the same thing.

When you shoot a 10x9 room, do you think you are going to give the viewer the feeling that the room is 10x9? Or, more likely, don't you want to show how attractive the room is? I have a cousin for whom I will photograph home interiors. Never once has she asked me to make a room feel small. If people see a photo of a room and a twin bed fills the room, they will understand room size.

When you get down to it, you want photos that show minimal distortion so that the rooms look as attractive as possible. Unless you are in the business of selling prison cells.

camcam123 said:
Thank you for all information.

What camera do you use: full platform or DSLR?

Because at 12+mm, this lens will be "only" 18mm wide on my Nikon SLR... From what I've read, they say there is this expensive 14mm fixed lens which is the "Rolls Royce" of real estate photography and otherwise the best average length is usually 16mm...

I understand whatever I've read on internet is subjective and depends what is the size of rooms the particular photographer usually takes photos of. But in the city, a room can be 10x9 - so what kind of wide angle do you need to capture that size? My current camera has 23mm wide angle and that is definitely not enough to show "whole" rooms.

I know I need to learn more about the subject.

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

JayCeKaden · Dec 20, 2009

johnmcbay said:
Most of the info and suggestions here are good, but, I will suggest, with the utmost sincerity that you would be doing yourself a big favor by hiring a professional real estate photographer to shoot your listings. It is probably far less expensive than you think and the results will be far beyond anything you can achieve with the equipment you mentioned. The big issue is the tremendous range of light in a typical room, from brilliantly lit exterior to dark and shady corners of the room.

If you do go ahead with this, the advice to shoot when there is plenty of sunlight pouring into the room is exactly the wrong advice. Try to shoot near dawn or dusk or on a cloudy, overcast day.

I do this for a living, and I also use a Sigma 10-20. All I can tell you is that shooting real estate interiors that produce good results is significantly more difficult than most photographers (let alone amateurs) realize. I have a friend who is a very accomplished photographer (portraits and weddings). He once tried to shoot the interior of a home. He was not very happy with the result. Most RE photogs will use a number of ancillary light sources or extensive post-processing techniques, or both to produce nice images.

Go here to find a local RE photographer: http://photographyforrealestate.net/new-direct/

If you want to e-mail me at [email protected], I will ask around in the online group I belong to, to direct you to someone local.

Nice. Internet marketing at its finest!!

eddyshoots · Dec 20, 2009

Full platform, 14mm and rolls royce. I deduce that full platform is referring to full frame or FX. That 14mm and rolls is about the Nikkor 14-24 2.8. In the second part of the post the OP is concerned about the DX crop factor and how he may not be able to get wide enough.

Answers to the original poster (camcam123):

You needn't worry to much about full frame when you are just starting out. It's another of those things that professionals and crazy amateurs need/want. The 10-20 lens is about as wide as you can go and still look normal. 10mm on DX will make a 10x10 room look huge. Straight lines will look pretty much straight (there will be some distortion however).

A 12 mm lens on a DX camera will behave like an 18mm lens true, but keep in mind 18 is pretty wide on full frame. 10mm will behave like 15mm which only 1mm off of the 14mm lens you ask about. And these full frame 14mm lenses are not very wide anymore on DX (only 21mm equivialent).

I still think you are best off with the DX camera and a 10mm zoom. Don't worry about fast lenses yet. I have the Nikkor 10-24 and I love it. Mine pretty much stays at 10mm. Do keep in mind that I shoot for fun only (and 10mm is fun).

Should you make the purchase you will need to buy a book or two, look at some real estate photography web pages and learn photography in general.

Book: Understanding Exposure by Bryon Peterson

Real estate by Strobist:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/07/boot-camp-ii-assignment-3.htmlhttp://strobist.blogspot.com/2008/08/one-light-real-estate-photography.html

Primer:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/digitalbasics.html

Good luck

eddyshoots

winparkman said:
I don't know what you mean by full platform. This is a Nikon digital SLR forum for the D90 through to the D3000.

There is no magic lens in architecture and most realtors use point and shoots. Whether you choose the 10-20 or 12-24 or 11-16 or any other wide-angle, they are all going to do roughly the same thing.

When you shoot a 10x9 room, do you think you are going to give the viewer the feeling that the room is 10x9? Or, more likely, don't you want to show how attractive the room is? I have a cousin for whom I will photograph home interiors. Never once has she asked me to make a room feel small. If people see a photo of a room and a twin bed fills the room, they will understand room size.

When you get down to it, you want photos that show minimal distortion so that the rooms look as attractive as possible. Unless you are in the business of selling prison cells.

camcam123 said:

Thank you for all information.

What camera do you use: full platform or DSLR?

Because at 12+mm, this lens will be "only" 18mm wide on my Nikon SLR... From what I've read, they say there is this expensive 14mm fixed lens which is the "Rolls Royce" of real estate photography and otherwise the best average length is usually 16mm...

I understand whatever I've read on internet is subjective and depends what is the size of rooms the particular photographer usually takes photos of. But in the city, a room can be 10x9 - so what kind of wide angle do you need to capture that size? My current camera has 23mm wide angle and that is definitely not enough to show "whole" rooms.

I know I need to learn more about the subject.

Click to expand...

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

DEMETRIOS THE GREEK · Dec 21, 2009

I have used both lenses in my D90 as well as the Tamron 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 and the Tokina 12-24.

1. In matter of picture quality, the Tokina is the best! (but not as wide as the others).

2. The second best is the sigma 10-20 f3.5 (it also has great construction quality). It focusew faster and more accurate than the f4.5-5.6

3. the Tamron is the worst and chippest of all. It focuses only if there is great contrast in the scene. (of course autofocus is not necessary in 10-20mm but it is quite annoying)!! What is interesting about this lens is that the 10mm in Tamron gives me a wider view than the 10mm in Sigma. The quality picture quality is equal to the Sigma.

4. There is also the great Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It is better in quality than the sigma and Tamron....lower quality than the Tokina 12-22mm but cheaper than the Sigma 10-20 f3.5.

jers · Dec 21, 2009

I have owned a Sigma 10-20mm 5.6, & was not happy with it. Look for a second hand Nikon 12-24mm. It is a better then Sigma.

2 Sigmas 10-20mm: f/4-5.6 or f3.5 - which one to choose?

Member

Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts