Gear Talk > Canon General

Ultrafast wide angles

(1/4) > >>

rjsmedo:
What is the point in an ultra fast wide angle lens? I notice the 16-35mm f2.8 costs nearly double the next step down, 17-?mm f4

Will you really see any difference depth of field wise in a wide angle zoom lens? wouldn't you want to stop down anyways if you are using this kind of lens (ie: photojournalism, landscape, night photography)?

maybe i'm missing the point. can someone please explain?

alipaulphotography:
The ability to shoot in low light without flash.

Wide apertures aren't just for depth of field - they also let in more light. That is the main point in them.

More light means you can have faster shutter speed (less motion blur) and lower ISO (less noise) thus better quality pictures for a correct exposure.

If you don't know why a bright lens is useful then it is probably best that you save your money.

Ali

www.alipaul.com

neuroanatomist:
There's alway a trade off - wide apertures let in more light, but have a shallower depth of field.  However, that trade off is actually minimized with wide angle lenses, which have a deeper DoF reesulting from the short focal length.  At 16mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is within the DoF, and you get twice the light of f/4. 

Also, a fast wide angle lens with a close subject can still deliver shallow DoF at that wide angle, for an interesting perspective.  Here's an example:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM @ 27mm, 1/25 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200

For me, choosing the 16-35mm f/2.8 over the 17-40mm f/4 was about flexibility - the ability to shoot in low light when needed.  A lens can always be stopped down, right?

neuroanatomist:
Here's one more example, with an even wider aperture (f/1.4), showing a very thin DoF with the subject so close:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100

EELinneman:

--- Quote from: neuroanatomist on April 10, 2011, 09:13:30 AM ---There's alway a trade off - wide apertures let in more light, but have a shallower depth of field.  However, that trade off is actually minimized with wide angle lenses, which have a deeper DoF reesulting from the short focal length.  At 16mm f/2.8 focused at 10 feet, everything from 5 feet to infinity is within the DoF, and you get twice the light of f/4. 

Also, a fast wide angle lens with a close subject can still deliver shallow DoF at that wide angle, for an interesting perspective.  Here's an example:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM @ 27mm, 1/25 s, f/2.8, ISO 3200


Outstanding photo, explanation and response!

For me, choosing the 16-35mm f/2.8 over the 17-40mm f/4 was about flexibility - the ability to shoot in low light when needed.  A lens can always be stopped down, right?

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version