Originally posted by g026r Hopefully this is the right place to ask, and hopefully it hasn't been answered before, but a question for anyone who's used both the 10-20mm f4-5.6 and the 10-20mm f3.5 HSM:
How would you rate the two lenses? Which would you prefer in terms of image quality?
I'm thinking of buying one but haven't decided on which, and figured I'd ask for opinions.
From personal experience (I own the 3.5):
The 3.5 is stupid quiet. You can't hear the thing focus. When I first bought it I was used to non-HSM lenses and I actually had to double-check that the lens was actually working because of the silence.
If you primarily plan to stick to the 10mm end, I'd go for the cheaper option. I personally picked the 3.5 due to the extra aperture blade and the extra stop(s) at the 20mm end. 3.5 vs 5.6 is a pretty hefty leap when you get down to brass tacks.
Another use for the lens I wasn't anticipating when I bought it is for shooting the kidlings when they're running around the house. 20mm @3.5 is far more useful in those situations than 20mm @ 5.6.
Oh, and the lens doesn't 'spin', so gradiated filters would work far better with the 3.5 as well.
Really, it comes down to if you feel like dropping the extra $150 (I think that was the difference in price) or so is worth it for the blades/silence/extra stops.