Low aperture on ultrawides

D

donkey_kong

Suspended / Banned
Messages
216
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been thinking about getting an ultrawide zoom for my D3100 for a while and it's come down to the Tokina 11-16 Mark II or the 10-20 Sigma. However, it got me thinking I'm going to use the ultra-wides mainly for sweeping landscapes and so I would only be using an aperture which would allow front to back sharpness. I've been trying to think when I would use the aperture at 2.8 and couldn't think of a particular situation.

So my question is this, when would you be using a low aperture with your ultra-wides? I don't want to be paying an extra couple hundred pounds for an extra stops if I won't be using it.
 
donkey_kong said:
I've been thinking about getting an ultrawide zoom for my D3100 for a while and it's come down to the Tokina 11-16 Mark II or the 10-20 Sigma. However, it got me thinking I'm going to use the ultra-wides mainly for sweeping landscapes and so I would only be using an aperture which would allow front to back sharpness. I've been trying to think when I would use the aperture at 2.8 and couldn't think of a particular situation.

So my question is this, when would you be using a low aperture with your ultra-wides? I don't want to be paying an extra couple hundred pounds for an extra stops if I won't be using it.
Click to expand...

There's not a lot of difference in price of those 2 anyway, so why limit yourself? Landscapes aren't always about everything being equal sharpness, sometimes things work a lot better with bits blurred out, just as with any photography.

I can safely say there is no way I'd part with my 11-16 - best lens I've ever owned!
 
I went through a similar dilemma with the Tokina 11-16 and Canon 10-22.

I ultimately went with the Canon (reasons not relevant to this thread) however I rarely ever shoot landscapes wide open, yet often have used all of the additional focal length the Canon gives.

My preference would be for additonal focal length for landscapes, interiors (weddings) the fixed f2.8.
 
Any time you want to smash the background out of focus or want a faster shutter speed? As an example, I was taking pictures at a cycling event last weekend. I wanted that ultra wide look while keeping my shutter speed up without ballooning my ISO too much. I'm sure photographers use them for creative images too.

People don't use wide angle lens' just for landscapes!
 
donkey_kong said:
I've been thinking about getting an ultrawide zoom for my D3100 for a while and it's come down to the Tokina 11-16 Mark II or the 10-20 Sigma. However, it got me thinking I'm going to use the ultra-wides mainly for sweeping landscapes and so I would only be using an aperture which would allow front to back sharpness. I've been trying to think when I would use the aperture at 2.8 and couldn't think of a particular situation.

So my question is this, when would you be using a low aperture with your ultra-wides? I don't want to be paying an extra couple hundred pounds for an extra stops if I won't be using it.
Click to expand...

Low f/numbers are not used as commonly with wide-angles. Always nice to have of course, but hard to get too much in the way of out of focus backgrounds with a super-wide.

The trade off is you will tend to have less zoom range with a 2.8 lens, but probably get more weight and cost.
 
I have the Tokina I really like it, on full frame or crop, I think they sell well second hand if you don't think it's for you.
 
I originally got my 11-16 for the Northern Lights on a trip to Norway, but it now gets regular use for other night-time stuff such as the stars and moonlit landscapes. And daytime landscapes at smaller apertures of course.
 
When I bought my tokina it was because it was the best ultra wide available. The fact that it also went to 2.8 barely registered at the time and I don't remember ever shooting with it wide open. I can see its uses though, as mentioned above, it would be big benefit for star photography.
 
hollis_f said:
Wide-field astro shots greatly benefit from f2.8 over f3.5, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I bought mine, specifically for astro wide field.
 
Even at f2.8 you'd struggle to get much noticably out of focus doing a landscape shot with a 10mm lens. Depth of field is - as they say - considerable.

What you could do is extreme close up portraits, or soften someone's face so that focus is on their hand jumping out toward you.
 
Jayst84 said:
Events, weddings, PJs, portraits, to get you started. ;)
Click to expand...

Except that the difference between f2.8 and f3.5 for those applications is minimal.

If your subject is 10 feet away then, at 12mm, your depth of field at f2.8 is 4.7 feet to infinity. At f3.6 it's 4.1 feet to infinity. Yes, I can see how those extra 6 inches will make a huge difference [/sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
Except that the difference between f2.8 and f3.5 for those applications is minimal.

If your subject is 10 feet away then, at 12mm, your depth of field at f2.8 is 4.7 feet to infinity. At f3.6 it's 4.1 feet to infinity. Yes, I can see how those extra 6 inches will make a huge difference [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

The benefit is in light gathering, just like with your astro shots.
 
If the difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 also means 11-16mm instead of say 10-22mm, I'd take the latter every time - big difference in zoom range. In walkabout shooting I find a bit of an overlap with a standard range zoom in the 18-20ish zone saves a lot of lens changing.
 
I have the Sigma 10-20mm (variable F) and love it
 
I have a sigma 10-20 too. To be honest, I wished I'd gone for something quicker - it's great but i take a lot of low light shots..

Ho hum - always something to buy eh ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top