Having a fast wide angle lens - worth the money?

[Yucel]

K, lots of pertinent comments.

I shoot mainly glamour, and love my Tokina 11-16 2.8, view sample here shot w Nikon D90: What draws attention in a glamour photograph? | Cultured Woman, LLC

A Nikon Shooter and I chose the Tokina over the Nikon. The quality seemed there on the Tokina and I have not looked back... tho am looking at the Sigma 8-16 as I do love wider...


Re F4 shooting...

Again, very much a YES to the comments.

I have taken a series of shots at various F Stops from F3.0 to F32 to show what happens to DOF, Chormatic Abberation, Diffusion Blur and other effects as F Stop is varied, see results here: http://glamourphotography.co/?p=406


These were done using a Nikon 105 2.8 Macro Lens, which is a very sharp lens, see sample of sharp shot here: Two Different Colored Eyes Before and After Post Processing with Photoshop | Cultured Woman, LLC


And, ain't it a sweetness, that the F2.8 is a 3.0?


The other consideration is scale.

On a small blow up, say web sized, various distortion effects are often near invisible. On a wall sized poster, they may be very evident.

How big you wanna blow something up then, is a big question on importance of lense quality.

The lower the lens quality, usually the more pronounced any effects.

Why are faster lenses higher quality?

Usually, faster lenses are the makers most expensive and highest quality. So, they are better quality because they are made with more care at higher expense for use by people who are demanding quality for their extra bux.