Having a fast wide angle lens - worth the money?

[benhasajeep]

I have a Tokina 11-16 and will not trade it for anything else out there. Top notch lens in my opinion. As said earlier, each lens has a sweet spot up from the maximum. Having an extra stop of light at the sweet spot could be the difference from a good pic to a ho-hum pic.

As for Landscapes I am at either 1 end or the other aperture wise. Either I want the foreground or not.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Nice pics, GeorgieGirl. I just ordered this lens last night!

Ooooohhhh...I think you'll like it :mrgreen:

 

[sobolik]

I don't shoot Canon since I'm a dreaded Nikonian but I have heard amazing things about the Tokina 11 to 16mm DX. Going to grab one this month and give it a whirl.

Give a long look at the Tokina 12-24. I LOVE MINE!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Fast wide angles are definitely an asset if you use the speed, and i'm with derrel where when i say fast, i mean f/1.4-f/2.

I use a 24mm f/1.4 which on FF is pretty darn fast, it gives me the ability to really isolate my portraits while still getting context into the frame and also when i'm shooting landscapes, get fast enough shutter speeds.

Not all landscapes are shot at ISO 100 and f/11. I shot this one at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 with that 24mm:

 

[pgriz]

^^^ Nice!

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Not all landscapes are shot at ISO 100 and f/11.

But I would bet the majority of them are shot at f/8 or higher. Thats a very nice shot, but IMO the only reason it works, is because the darkness covers the completely OOF foreground. Not saying that this effect isn't cool and useful at times, but if the OP is strictly a landscape shooter and doesn't do a lot of photojournalism, and portraits ( and isn't shooting with a full framed camera ) then the whole sub-f/2.8 argument is moot. They don't even make a lens that fast that would be an ultrawide on a cropped-sensor. They would almost definately get more use out of a standard superwide like the Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, or even he 12-24. However, with that said, if I couldn't quite afford the Canon 10-22, I would definately snag the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 in a heart beat because its probably the second best of the Canon mount superwides. ( if you remove the whole "do I need it to be faster" part of the equation )


( Note: I don't mean any offense, just friendly debate)

 

[Compaq]

Fast wide angles are definitely an asset if you use the speed, and i'm with derrel where when i say fast, i mean f/1.4-f/2.

I use a 24mm f/1.4 which on FF is pretty darn fast, it gives me the ability to really isolate my portraits while still getting context into the frame and also when i'm shooting landscapes, get fast enough shutter speeds.

Not all landscapes are shot at ISO 100 and f/11. I shot this one at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 with that 24mm:

I'm betting that you didn't take that one hand held At a tripod, a few extra seconds exposure wouldn't be something I'd irritate myself over. How would that shot look at f3.5 with a longer shutter speed? How many seconds does it take for the stars to make lines? Apropos, what are those lines in the water?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Not all landscapes are shot at ISO 100 and f/11.

But I would bet the majority of them are shot at f/8 or higher. Thats a very nice shot, but IMO the only reason it works, is because the darkness covers the completely OOF foreground. Not saying that this effect isn't cool and useful at times, but if the OP is strictly a landscape shooter and doesn't do a lot of photojournalism, and portraits ( and isn't shooting with a full framed camera ) then the whole sub-f/2.8 argument is moot. They don't even make a lens that fast that would be an ultrawide on a cropped-sensor. They would almost definately get more use out of a standard superwide like the Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, or even he 12-24. However, with that said, if I couldn't quite afford the Canon 10-22, I would definately snag the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 in a heart beat because its probably the second best of the Canon mount superwides. ( if you remove the whole "do I need it to be faster" part of the equation )


( Note: I don't mean any offense, just friendly debate)

I would agree for the most part, but the fast aperture is still useful even when shooting at tight apertures. When shooting at night doing longer exposures, the fast aperture lets me see what i'm composing when using live view(!)

Fast wide angles are definitely an asset if you use the speed, and i'm with derrel where when i say fast, i mean f/1.4-f/2.

I use a 24mm f/1.4 which on FF is pretty darn fast, it gives me the ability to really isolate my portraits while still getting context into the frame and also when i'm shooting landscapes, get fast enough shutter speeds.

Not all landscapes are shot at ISO 100 and f/11. I shot this one at ISO 6400 and f/1.4 with that 24mm:

I'm betting that you didn't take that one hand held At a tripod, a few extra seconds exposure wouldn't be something I'd irritate myself over. How would that shot look at f3.5 with a longer shutter speed? How many seconds does it take for the stars to make lines? Apropos, what are those lines in the water?

The lines in the water are stars being reflected off the lake, the ripples in the water distort the reflections.

If you're shooting at f/3.5, you're losing 2.5 stops of light, so the exposure instead of being 20 seconds, would be almost a minute to compensate, or bump your ISO up 2.5 stops. at 24mm(16mm on DX), you have to keep your exposures under 30 seconds, otherwise the stars instead of points, become trails. A good rule of thumb is 600/focal length = the longest exposure without trails(on FF) so at 24mm, that's 25 seconds, at 50mm, it's 12, at 12mm FF it's 50 seconds.

You can also underexpose and pull back the image in photoshop, but it brings in a ton of noise.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Good Point about the brighter viewfinder.

 

[Compaq]

Hmm. Many thanks for the input, I'm sure other than me can profit from this thread.

Money won't come too quickly for me, though. Probably won't be able to afford a new lens until summer :meh:

 

[adversus]

Switch, thanks for that explanation. That's one of the better tips I've read in a while. I may have to try this with our clear night skies this weekend!

We may take a trip to Mt. Hood this spring. My wife has never been even though we're in the 'burbs of Portland.

 

[Dominantly]

I got my hands on a Nikkor 14-24mm lens for a while and LOVED it.

I like wide angle lenses for just about everything, so I could see shelling out some serious coin for one.

 

[dylanstraub]

I also considered the Sigma equivalent (10-20mm) but the Canon got better reviews. The Sigma is a couple hundred cheaper though, so it's a good option.

I had the Sigma lens for quite a while and my only major complaint is that it was very slow to focus. Of course if you're shooting landscape and buildings (as I was) it's not that important. In the end I didn't use it as much as I thought I would so I traded it up for a Canon 60mm macro. It's amazing how many things I think I want compared to the things I really need.

 

[syphlix]

it's worth it if you need it...

if all you're doing is taking landscapes mostly on tripods... then no you prob don't really need the 2.8...

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Switch, thanks for that explanation. That's one of the better tips I've read in a while. I

I think so too...have read it a few times and know I have to wrap my head around it...but I am slow to focus anymore....I think I have to wirte it down and work the numbers. Thanks!