Originally posted by CRPhoto Wow nice pictures! Which version of the lens you guys bought? the F3.5 or the F4-5.6? Is there a big difference in IQ?
I bought the f4-5.6 version when it first came out, and there wasn't an f3.5 version. Although when I first bought mine, it was retailing for $200 cheaper than it does now! I think that demand became much higher once word got out that it didn't suck. I hear the new version is physically 10mm taller and wider, and takes great images like its little brother. I want it. I don't need it, but I want it.
Originally posted by afroed I should have never stumbled on this thread. Forget about the DA*50-135. I'm getting a Sigma 10-20 and I'm getting it now. Mr Dubious Drewski did this to me.
Haha. Thanks for that.
Originally posted by afroed By the way Drewski, did you do any lens correction for distortion on the pic of the model? They look quite flattering for pictures taken with a wide angle lens
No corrections were done to fix distortion. Some of them are cropped in slightly, but they're otherwise just as they were shot. If you position the important parts of a person in the middle of the frame (like the head) then the distortion is less noticeable. But if you look closely at anything not in the middle of the frame, like her legs, you can see that they are distorted in each shot - a price I was willing to pay to get such a neat angle.
People usually nitpick about the leg distortion though. I'm glad you guys aren't!