Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
asked by ChristoboL on January 14, 2010
Sort: Most Helpful first | Newest first | Oldest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 answers
A
I tried both side-by-side. F/3.5 model focused noticeably faster in low light. It also has a better build. On the other hand it is larger, heavier and uses more expensive 82mm filters (F/4-5.6 uses 77mm filters). Plus at the time I purchased it, the 4-5.6 model cost $407$ at my local store and the 3.5 model cost $649, which is $250 difference. At that price difference you might as well get excellently reviewed Tokina 11-16 constant F/2.8. Some food for thought
D. Brodsky answered on April 7, 2010
Comment (1) | 7 of 10 found this helpful. Do you?  Yes No | Report abuse

A
would this len work on Sony Alpha A65, A-mount
Bernette P. answered on November 17, 2015
Comment | Do you find this helpful?  Yes No | Report abuse
‹ Previous   1   Next ›

See all questions about this product