what is the difference between the Sigma 35S965 60mm F2.8 DN Lens and the Sigma 35S963 60mm F2.8 DN Lens. Both are the same price and both are silver.
1718547
Carefully check the MOUNT for the lens you want to purchase and make sure it's appropriate for your camera. It looks like the difference is that one is for Micro Four Thirds cameras and the other for Sony E mount.
574210
The obvious difference is the cosmetics. The G lens is silver whereas the G 2 is white. What I noticed otherwise was the G 2 focuses slightly faster. Both are fine lenses.
1375969
The lens is the same. I would recommend purchasing from Amazon, as there are no significant discounts and Amazon standing behind their products and purchasers, to include no-charge 2 day shipping if a Prime member worth it. By the way, a great lens. If you are a pro then go for it, but the new 24-240 lens at $995 is a great bargain and a great lens covering a 10X magnification, relatively light, and works great on e-mount Sony's. I just got mine and am ecstatic with it.
394030
agreed with the sentiments above. I have purchased the tamron 16-300, as well as the nikon 18-300 f6.3 and this lense. The difference with the nikon is noticeable. Not only in picture quality. But also in distance. the 300 on the tamron doesn't reach where the nikon does. granted the nikon 18-300 @300 doesn't match the nikon 55-300 @ 300 either. Also the movement, the tamron is much stiffer than the nikon options. A Great all day lense. Im working into prime lenses, and high quality fixed aperture lenses, but for now I still use this as my main glass.
204309
You won't go wrong with either lens, but since the 60mm will also give you a macro lens, you probably should make that your choice. C'mon, that's the one you really want anyhow, isn't it.
992357
Although I have both Tamron and Sigma lenses, I prefer using Sigma. Better clarity, better constructed.
632572
I own the 18-250mm and it is really sharp and a good lens. I was very surprised. Not sure of the Sigma but I know with the Tamron it is a bargain at that price.
2043803
The main difference appears to be the aperture. The f/2.8 will work better in lower light giving you at least an extra stop of light to play with. This means shorter exposures in lower light than the f/4-5.6.
1264649
That's a long answer that is best described here: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/sigma-30mm-f1-4-dc-hsm-vs-sigma-30mm-f1-4-ex-dc In short, the DC HSM is the newer model with improvements in build quality and manual focusing.
725619
This lens compares with and outperform the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L USM, I purchased this lens after my Canon broke down, I purchased the Sigma lens and have been use it more than the Canon Lens, fantastic lens and costs half of Canon's price.
608748
I have both for my Nikon D300s. Sigma 17-50 2.8 is a much better choice. Range in slightly narrower but indoor performance, portrait photography, and bikes are better.
134989
I am very happy with this lens. I have not tried the Sigma. I have the tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 VC both outstanding lenses - fast and sharp. Tamron is slightly more expensive and reviews always slightly higher. Sorry I could not give you more info about the Sigma
1646078
Both lenses are excellent and brilliantly sharp. The Sigma is less expensive. The Canon focuses more quickly, a little, no macro lenses are fast. It should come down to what focal length you want. Canon offers an IS version of the macro. The stabilization is nice if you hand hold, but doubles the price and weight.
236736
I honestly don't know what the difference may be between the two lenses. I do not own the canon 14mm lens to compare them. I am very happy with this Sigma lens. It takes a nice full wide angle shot.
387100
I have rented both of them. Compared the results. No difference. Save yourself a grand and buy the Sigma. I love it and have never regretted it or looked back.
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
2071193
Yes. It is WAY better in every aspect. Although it costs a bit more, the image quality is much higher with the Sony lens. The Sigma is very soft, especially above 300mm. I tried the Sigma and was not satisfied with the images. My Sony 70-400 never disappoints.