any need for a fast wide-angle?

[jlemire]

For a while now I have thought about replacing my 28-80mm 3.5/5.6

lens with a faster prime wide-angle since I really only use this lens

at the 28mm end. However, it has occurred to me that I can't ever

remember a time where I needed or even wanted to shoot a wide-angle

scene wide open. In fact I almost always want to shoot wide angles

stopped down as much as possible to maximize depth of field.

 

My questions: do any of you see a need for a fast wide angle lens? do

any of you regularly shoot a wide angle wide open? If so, what types

of scenes are you shooting?

[scott_lewis3]

Wide angles tend to have great d.o.f even when wide open. The only advantage then would be the sharpness of a prime over a zoom.

[tri_tran3]

Maybe someday you will need to take a group picture and doesn't want to use flash then the wide aperture is perfect for that situation. Plus, the quality of a prime over a crap zoom will make a difference regardless of which aperture you shoot.

[louie]

For basic landscape photography, I don't see the need for a fast lens. I'll almost always be tripod mounted, and don't have to worry about long shutter speeds.

 

A reasonably fast wide angle lens would be useful for shooting without a tripod. It would also be useful for other purposes than landscape photography, such as hand held photography in interior spaces. (e.g. a cathedral where they don't allow tripods).

[daniel rufer]

Jim<p>

Even thoug it can be said, that in landscape photography and other tripod-mounted shots you rarely need a fast lens as you probably operate partially stopped down anyway and a wide-angle is usually not used for selective focus :)<br>

However - aside from its usefulness or even necessity for hand-held shots of mostly non-static subjects in dim light (read: group shots indoors or at the BBQ-party in the evening etc) - a fast lens gives you a brighter viefinder image, whic can be essential if you shoot landscapes in very dim light or do night photography, as composing your shot of a moonlit landscape in the viewfinder at an aperture of f/4 or less is most likely an exercise in frustration...<br>

Aside from that, I would consider quality to be the first critera: I could imagine that the fast lens might be better corrected (distortion and chromatic aberrations etc) as the slower lens /the faster lens being of course larger, heavier and much more expensive). But even a fast prime is most likely smaller than your zoom.<p>

Just my 2 cents...

<p>

Daniel

[ShunCheung]

If we are strictkly speaking within the context of nature photography, you are unlikely to use any wide angle wide open. However, the problem with you 28-80 is that it is a lower-end zoom. The distortion at 28mm is probably pretty serious. Try shooting at 28mm and put the horizon near the top of the frame and you should see a curve. Still, for landscape photography, this is usually not a serious probelm.

[imaginator]

Beside the brighter virewfinder image, which helps focussing in low light, the next best reason is "astro"... things like meteors or comets.

[robert_potts1]

If you shoot surf in low light with slow film, it is good to be able to stop the wave motion when you want to. If surf is exposed too long, it ceases to look like waves. I suppose there are other situations with moving subjects (wind)where you would choose to arrest motion in low light.

[stephen hazelton]

I have a 17mm f/3.5 lens, and in many cases, it is hard to focus manually due to the inherent depth of field even wide open. In many cases, I just wind up using scale focusing on it. I wouldn't pay a big gob of money for a faster lens, but that would be one advantage of a faster lens.

[zack_lau]

I don't shoot rainbows regularly in Connecticut, but a fast wide angle is really helpful for those rare fleeting occasions. Not only does a polarizer cut down the light by two stops, but I lack the skill to use a tripod effectively with something that changes so rapidly. I think the top nature photographers have to be very smart and athletic--not only do you have to run to the best locations, but you have to know where to run, based on the physics of light.

[alex_lofquist]

One application for a fast wide angle would be for macros requiring a reversed lens on some extension. This would be of help for framing and focussing with the much reduced light intensity at reproduction ratios greater than about 3X, where brightness is only a few percent of that in normal photography. You wouldn't shoot at that aperture, but it is good in setup.

[j._scott_schrader]

I purchased a fast wide angle (24mm f1.4 L) strictly for the purposes of

photographing the Aurora Borealis. It was important to me that the stars were

recorded as points rather than streaks....I wanted to use an ASA 100 slide film so I

needed the fastest wide lens available. So, to answer your question ... yes a fast wide

lens does have its applications in nature photography. You can see a couple of my

Aurora images in my landscapes folder if you are interested.

[todd_west]

<p><i>The only advantage then would be the sharpness of a prime over a zoom.</i></p>

 

<p>Mmm... that depends. It's not uncommon for recent wide angle zooms to outperform wide angle primes, particularly with Nikon. Depends on which prime and which zoom, though just about anything even vaugely decent will clobber a cheap kit zoom.</p>

 

<p>The main reason to get a fast wide is those tend to be lenses targeted at professional photographers and therefore have better optics. This has little to do with aperture for aperture's sake and much to do with build quality. I've occasionally shot my wides in the f/4 range, though f/8 to f/11 is typical for me. It's unlikely you'd find a decent wide slower than f/4 anyway.</p>

[karl_lehmann]

A fast wide angle is extremely useful for aerial photography.<p>Karl Lehmann <a href="http://www.lostworldarts.com/new_page_3.htm">Lost World

Arts</a>

[bruce johnson]

For landscapes there are many specialized uses as mentioned above, but frankly they are more the exceptions rather than the rule so a slower lens is usually sufficient. I mostly shoot landscapes but my enjoyment of candid and street photography rose immensely when I got a 35/2.0 (a Hexar AF actually) and loaded the camera with 400/800 speed films, maybe even pushed a stop or two. At times this even comes in hand when doing "nature" photography such as this one on a recent trek to Nepal.

[yakim_peled1]

You may not need a fast lens but I think you need a better one. Stopping down as much as possible might lead to CA problems. I think that f/8-11 are enough for a wide angle to get good DoF. HTH.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[oscar_van_der_velde]

A late but hopefully useful reply: if you frequently see auroras or want to shoot without tripod in a church or so, the faster the better. Do not expect miracles in sharpness though, and there will be quite some vignetting. I own a Sigma 20mm f/1.8, just haven't encountered the aurora yet but this would be the lens!

[david_baldwin1]

Hello, I specialize in photography using fast wide angle lenses. For film I use a Nikkor 28mm f1.4 and for digital a Canon 24mm f1.4L.

 

I would say that in the last 2 years 90% of my photography has been taken at f1.4 because I like to shoot in very, very low light, and a slower lens just won't get the image. Sharpness issues at full aperture are very difficult to control with wide lenses, so sharpness is potentially a problem. That's why good fast wides are so expensive, lots of fancy elements. These lenses produce moody and dreamy results.

 

For an example of my own work please visit:

 

http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/subpages/la06.html

 

Other images are viewable at:

 

http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/

 

If you have a real need for a fast wide then you would already know! Happy shooting.