Originally posted by Class A I don't agree that the slower 10-20 is the better one optically. IIRC, the constant aperture (faster) version is ahead in many optical disciplines and only behind in one or two (CA?) that can be corrected with software. Sorry for not being precise here, but I'm writing from memory. I got the constant aperture version, because it
- is optically better in many disciplines.
- has HSM (and hence the equivalent of Quickshift).
- has an odd number of aperture blades. The latter allows for much nicer star burst effects (see below).
Hey Class A, that is a fantastic shot! You make a great point about the new version, particularly since it offers constant 3.5, HSM, and better vignetting control. I should know better than to call 1 lens better than another--better is always determined by one's needs. Let me qualify my statement--both versions are comparable in MTF scores, except that the 4-5.6 enjoys a big advantage @ 10mm, in extreme borders. Also, 4-5.6, as you mentioned, has better grip on CA, & more attractive price. Finally, Photozone gives the nod to the 4-5.6 version.
This is a jpg, "stripped from the Raw"