Why are affordable wide angle lens so slow?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/09/2007 12:10:15 PM · #1

I've been considering a wide angle lens for some time now, but it seems that the affordable ones are quite slow (aperture of 4 to 4.5).

This Sigma (Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG) is enticing, but 4.5 seems slow to me. At $689 it's not exactly inexpensive!

This Tamron (Tamron SP AF14mm F/2.8 Aspherical (IF)) has me drooling big time (it's faster at 2.8) but it's $1000.

My favorite lens right now is the Tamron SP AF24-135mm F/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) Macro but it's leaving me short on the wide end (really, REALLY, wished for something wider on vacation!).

Any thoughts? Is 4.5 acceptable at 12mm?

Thanks! :)

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/09/2007 12:16:09 PM · #2

i was ok with 4 and 4.5 at 17. i have used 2.8 on my newest lens but i could have done without it' most of the time wide is used for landscapes and such which slow is ok for'

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

05/09/2007 12:17:14 PM · #3

I'm not an expert by any means, but the way I justify it is that these wide lenses typically are used for phtographing something that might require more DOF â�¦ not Macro or something where a shallow DOF is desireable.
Having said that, I have a sorta redundant lens in my bag that happens to be f2.8 â�¦ let me know if you're interested in making me an offer for this:
15mm fisheye

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

05/09/2007 12:18:47 PM · #4

When making the aperture smaller it requires that blade assembly to unfold.

Its harder to make the aperture assembly and blades compact up into a tight space. F/4 is cheaper to make then f/2.8 it naturallymakes sense to me.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/09/2007 12:23:23 PM · #5

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

F/2.8 is a LARGER aperture than f/4. You have it backwards.

R.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR

05/09/2007 12:24:40 PM · #6

Ok. Thanks everyone. That makes sense to me now. It's hard to shake the mindset that faster is better. :)

There are some really nice images posted with that Sigma 12-24 here at DPC. Appears that this is the leading candidate at the moment.

Again, many thanks!

RainMotorsports

Nikon D60

05/09/2007 12:26:06 PM · #7

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:
When making the aperture smaller it requires that blade assembly to unfold.

Its harder to make the aperture assembly and blades compact up into a tight space. F/4 is cheaper to make then f/2.8 it naturallymakes sense to me.

F/2.8 is a LARGER aperture than f/4. You have it backwards.

R.

Im rereading what i said.

As far as i can translate my own words.

F/2.8 More expensive, larger aperture, harder to make

F/4.0 Less Expensive Smaller Aperture, Easier to make

not sure where u lost me lol. no where did i say that F/4 was larger.

Message edited by author 2007-05-09 12:27:07.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/09/2007 12:26:24 PM · #8

Is 4.5 acceptable? Honestly, yes, unless you're intending to use it to shoot live subjects in low light, or for night sky/ night landscape work. Since UWA lenses are most often used for landscape work, their performance at f/5.6 to f/16 is most important.
If you do intend to do serious night sky photography, then a fisheye is a better bet for UWA. They are sharper and wider without being more expensive.
The high expense of fast UWA rectilinear lenses is due to the fact that they are extreme retrofocus designs. This type of design is hard to correct, and the faster you make the lens the harder correction becomes. The required optical elements also become much larger.
You might consider something in the 16mm-17mm range. You don't lose that much in FoV vs. 14mm (about 10 degrees horizontally, 67Â° vs. 77Â°).

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

05/09/2007 12:41:40 PM · #9

Originally posted by kirbic:

Yep. Mostly landscape, so you're correct, I would be using the deeper apertures most of the time. :)

Originally posted by kirbic:

You might consider something in the 16mm-17mm range. You don't lose that much in FoV vs. 14mm (about 10 degrees horizontally, 67Â° vs. 77Â°).

The spec sheet for the Sigma 12-24 (linked in OP) shows a FOV of 122 degrees at 12mm. On my KM 5D I have to consider the 1.5x crop factor of the sensor...however, I am holding out hope that Sony gets it right with the rumored full-frame DSLR in the near future (PMA 07 Convention). :P

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

05/09/2007 12:46:36 PM · #10

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

When making the aperture smaller it requires that blade assembly to unfold.

Its harder to make the aperture assembly and blades compact up into a tight space. F/4 is cheaper to make then f/2.8 it naturallymakes sense to me.

If it is harder to make the blades compact into a tight space (it is), then if anything the larger aperture would be cheaper than the smaller. In fact the issue of f/2.8 vs f/4 is irrelevant to how hard it is to compact the tiny apertures: what you are saying would be relevant to why more WA lenses don't have, say, f/32 on the small end, not f/2.8 on the larger end. Thus, "backwards".

R.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/09/2007 12:53:34 PM · #11

FWIW, I love my Sigma 12-24. Part of the reason it's more expensive than the other lenses in this range like the Tokina 12-24 is that the Sigma provides full 24mmx36mm sensor coverage, where the others are designed for APS-C sensors.

I eagerly await the day when I attach mine to my new 5D.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/09/2007 12:54:25 PM · #12

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Yep, the *diagonal* FoV of the 12-24 would be 122Â° on a 35mm format camera; the horz. FoV is 112Â°.
On a 1.5-crop APS-C camera, the corresponding figures are 101Â° diag. and 90Â° horz. FoV.
The real question is, do need something *that* wide? I shoot most landscapes with a 24mm focal length (it's the widest rectilinear lens I own) and if I need wider coverage, I shoot panos. This allows me to retain detail while gaining coverage in the direction I need.
The equivalent focal length for your camera would be 16mm.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/09/2007 01:03:27 PM · #13

Originally posted by kirbic:

... The real question is, do need something *that* wide? ...

On this vacation trip there were several situations where the extra width of 12mm would have been great to have. Several family photo type scenarios (on the sailboat, at the restaurant, etc...), then there were some fantastic landscape op's. Panoramic stitching could have been an option I forgot to even consider. :(

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/09/2007 01:11:51 PM · #14

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by kirbic:
... The real question is, do need something *that* wide? ...

On this vacation trip there were several situations where the extra width of 12mm would have been great to have. Several family photo type scenarios (on the sailboat, at the restaurant, etc...), then there were some fantastic landscape op's. Panoramic stitching could have been an option I forgot to even consider. :(

One caution on photographing groups of people with an UWA lens; people at the horizontal extremes of the field will be badly distorted, in a very unflattering way. They appear unnaturally w-i-d-e. This effect is pronounced at 24mm on the 35mm format, and so will be *really* prominent at 12mm (18mm equivalent in 35mm terms) on your camera.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

05/09/2007 01:16:39 PM · #15

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by kirbic:
... The real question is, do need something *that* wide? ...

On this vacation trip there were several situations where the extra width of 12mm would have been great to have. Several family photo type scenarios (on the sailboat, at the restaurant, etc...), then there were some fantastic landscape op's. Panoramic stitching could have been an option I forgot to even consider. :(

One caution on photographing groups of people with an UWA lens; people at the horizontal extremes of the field will be badly distorted, in a very unflattering way. They appear unnaturally w-i-d-e. This effect is pronounced at 24mm on the 35mm format, and so will be *really* prominent at 12mm (18mm equivalent in 35mm terms) on your camera.

He-he. Thanks for the heads-up kirbic! I can see it now..."ok, skinny people to the outside please..." :D

swankFoto

Fujifilm X-E1

05/09/2007 02:01:17 PM · #16

Originally posted by glad2badad:

I've been considering a wide angle lens for some time now, but it seems that the affordable ones are quite slow (aperture of 4 to 4.5).

Any thoughts? Is 4.5 acceptable at 12mm?

Are there uwa zooms that are NOT affordable?
I don't think there are any 2.8 uwa zooms at all.

What's the fastest UW prime anyone knows of (MF ok)?
Any 14 1.4s?