Having a fast wide angle lens - worth the money?

Compaq · Dec 30, 2010

Landscape photos are often taken at middle aperture, say f5-f11 or upwards (for that stary sun effect, for example). If there's so little light out that you would need f2.8, I would think it better to invest in a good tripod and use that?

I assume pictures are a bit clearer and sharper at f5 if one could use them at f2.8, but the difference can't be that huge. There are actually quite a bit price difference from "normal" to L series (Canon). I'm just a poor student :lol:

*goes to pay bills*

edit: I would use a super wide angle for landscapes, and not pictures of buildings or indoors. I'm looking at the Canon 10-22mm f3,5-f4,5

flea77 · Dec 30, 2010

First rule is that a 2.8 lens shot at 4 is sharper than a 4 lens shot at 4.

Second rule, 2.8 lenses are almost always higher build quality and will take more punishment, last longer, may be weather sealed, etc.

Third rule, 2.8 glass usually has less distortion, abberation, etc.

Forth rule, there are exceptions to every rule :lol:

Allan

Compaq · Dec 30, 2010

flea77 said:
First rule is that a 2.8 lens shot at 4 is sharper than a 4 lens shot at 4.

Second rule, 2.8 lenses are almost always higher build quality and will take more punishment, last longer, may be weather sealed, etc.

Third rule, 2.8 glass usually has less distortion, abberation, etc.

Forth rule, there are exceptions to every rule

Allan

How helpful :lol:

mwcfarms · Dec 30, 2010

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.

Derrel · Dec 30, 2010

Owning a "fast" wide-angle lens can be a big asset, and by fast I mean something like an f/1.4 or f/1.8 or f/2 model...not an f/2.8 lens. Of course, it is only a big asset if it is used, and useful to the owner...

Compaq · Dec 30, 2010

I'm not a professional, just a learning enthusiast. I can live with not optimal sharpness etc etc. I don't think I'll bother much, as I don't think I'll use the lens at big low apertures.

Thanks for the input, now I just need to save money :x

pgriz · Dec 30, 2010

I assume people do remember that they can stitch photos together and get as wide an angle as they want...

One of my club members showed us a stunning panorama (sunset) that we all assumed he shot with a super-wide lens. After we oohed and aahed, he revealed that he stitched three portrait shots with a "normal" lens. Because he took the care to use a bracket (on a tripod, natch!) that centered at the front of the lens, he was able to have no distortion at the overlap areas. That exercise taught the rest of us that we have to step up in being creative!

Big Mike · Dec 30, 2010

Is it worth it? Depends on what you shoot.

For example, a photojournalist might need to take quick shots of people and their surroundings, so a fast lens would be helpful to get faster shutter speeds and maybe better AF performance (due to the extra light that the camera gets).
On the other hand, it's probably true that most landscape shots are shot will smaller apertures, not larger ones.

Stitching is a way to get a wider view as a final product, but it's certainly not a replacement for a wide angle lens.

I have the Canon 10-22mm and I thoroughly enjoy it. 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.

Village Idiot · Dec 30, 2010

Derrel said:
Owning a "fast" wide-angle lens can be a big asset, and by fast I mean something like an f/1.4 or f/1.8 or f/2 model...not an f/2.8 lens. Of course, it is only a big asset if it is used, and useful to the owner...

Can you recommend a good wide angle zoom that has a constant aperture wider than f/2.8?

Compaq said:
Landscape photos are often taken at middle aperture, say f5-f11 or upwards (for that stary sun effect, for example). If there's so little light out that you would need f2.8, I would think it better to invest in a good tripod and use that?

I assume pictures are a bit clearer and sharper at f5 if one could use them at f2.8, but the difference can't be that huge. There are actually quite a bit price difference from "normal" to L series (Canon). I'm just a poor student

*goes to pay bills*

edit: I would use a super wide angle for landscapes, and not pictures of buildings or indoors. I'm looking at the Canon 10-22mm f3,5-f4,5

At wider angles, you can also use slower shutter speeds while handheld. I opted for the 17-40 f/4L (for a full frame camera) for several reasons. Price and filter size were two of the biggest considerations. It's almost half the price than the 16-35 f/2.8 and has a 77mm filter size that's the same as my 24-70 and 70-200. It definitely doesn't perform at half the capacity as the 16-35 either. It's one of my most used zooms.

MohaimenK · Dec 30, 2010

Helllz yeah!!! Take a look at this album

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=156822394342375&set=a.156822314342383.34542.145244588833489

Catching an entire cathedral standing infront of it isn't something I could have done w/out my 16-35 2.8L

Naphtali14 · Dec 30, 2010

I might recommend the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I love that lens. It's much better than the canon counter lens in my opinion.

Another thing that wasn't noted is that having a fast lens is extremely useful for video in low light situations.

usayit · Dec 30, 2010

The whole judge a lens by it's max aperture is old..... drawn out generalization. I personally think the Canon 17-40L is better than the 16-35L for example. I am with Big Mike. It totally depends on how you use the lens. There is a reason why journalists and street photogs like the 16-35L... and it's not for landscapes.

Personally, I would focus on the desired focal length, lens' ability to control CA and minimize barrel distortion above all else for landscapes. Get a bomb stable tripod.

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Dec 30, 2010

I also have the Canon 10-22. I have used the Tokina 12-24 before as well and almost went for the Tokina 11-16 2.8, but like yourself, realized that I would probably never need the f/2.8 ( less than 1 stop wider than the Canon at its widest which is where I need the lens mainly anyway. ) The canon was wider also. I have not used the Tokina 11-16, but can say that the Canon has very good IQ even though it is not an "L" lens. It focuses very fast as well. It has USM, and is a wide angle lens, so focus chasing isn't really a big deal. It does good with flare and distortion and all that also. Other than the fact that its not weather sealed, I am very happy with it. It Its 77mm ( same as the 17-40L, the 70-200 etc. ) so it can help you consolidate filters if you have other 77mm lenses.