another silly question - fast wide angle lenses :-)

[Ellekes]

A silly question for several reasons. For starters, it is probable a really simple answer that I just didn't think off. Secondly, I might just have been looking in the wrong stores. And most of all, I'm not planning on buying a wide angle lens anyway

But as it has become an idle passtime of mine to look up all different kinds of lenses and trying to figure out why the price is what it is (high, low) and what you would shoot with those lenses...

I noticed there is very little in fast wide angle lenses. I found one 16-35 2.8 Canon wide angle zoom and all other were 3.5 at least.

In the prime wide angle there was more, but still not that much.

Why is that? Is it simply not that usefull to have a fast wide angle, is there no market, or don't you need such wide apertures?

 

[Bendihossan]

Usually wide angle zooms will be used for shooting landscapes or architecture so you won't really be shooting faster than f/8. The exception to the rule is for group portraits at weddings where you find yourself shooting indoors and the venue don't allow flash. That's the only reason I've heard people's reasons for getting the 16-35mm f/2.8 L but I'm sure there are others too. Hope that helps

 

[Arkady]

Fat wide zooms are expensive to make and therefore expensive to buy.
Fast wide prime lenses are easier to make, but still relatively expensive and therefore expensive to buy.
The question manufacturers must ask is what market for these lenses exists and is it viable to invest in manufacturing lots of different lenses for a relatively small market share?

The biggest market for fast zoom-lenses is the Professional sector and it's been established that the two main lenses Pro's use are the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8, which is why those lenses above all others are so beautifully-engineered these days.
Throw in an ultra-wide zoom such as the 14-24mm /f/2.8 and you'll see that the entire range is covered from 14mm to 200mm at f/2.8.
For low-light or aesthetic reasons, some pro's will also use fast primes within this focal-length-range - typically the 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4 and the 105mm or 135mm f/2.8.
The other lens that would be added to a Pro's collection might be a fast telephoto such as the 300mm f/2.8, but most don't bother unless they're specialist Sports photographers.

For specific tasks such as landscapes, most people wouldn't use a wide-zoom lens - they'd opt for a good-quality Prime lens - it's much easier and cheaper to make a lens with a slow maximum aperture such as f/2.8 and slower than it is a fast one - there are many variables to consider and many compromises to be made when you get into the realms of designing faster lenses.

In most cases, each prime lens available will come in two or three variations:
An expensive 'fast' Pro-spec lens costing upwards of £500... IQ would be very good but not awe-inspiring.
A medium-speed but good-quality lens costing around £300 - this lens would typically have better IQ across the frame than the others.
A budget lens costing about £100 or less - IQ would be acceptable but not brilliant.

 

[Bendihossan]

For specific tasks such as landscapes, most people wouldn't use a wide-zoom lens - they'd opt for a good-quality Prime lens

Why do you say that? The focal length I choose for the shot will vary depending on the scene in front of me with landscapes. I think if you were using a prime for landscapes you'd be limited by the focal length of the lens with regards to flexibility in what you can compose. Yeah the resolution will always be better with primes but if you don't have the right focal length prime then you may end up cropping it in post and loosing that advantage. That said I don't think that there are many wide angle prime lenses that significantly out perform (ie: they're obviously better quality optics) the 17-40mm and 16-35mm :shrug:

 

[Arkady]

Why do you say that? The focal length I choose for the shot will vary depending on the scene in front of me with landscapes. I think if you were using a prime for landscapes you'd be limited by the focal length of the lens with regards to flexibility in what you can compose. Yeah the resolution will always be better with primes but if you don't have the right focal length prime then you may end up cropping it in post and loosing that advantage. That said I don't think that there are many wide angle prime lenses that significantly out perform (ie: they're obviously better quality optics) the 17-40mm and 16-35mm :shrug:

Move your feet, you idle b****r...Ansel Adams didn't use zoom-lenses on those 10x12" plate cameras, did he?

Which brings me to something else - why would a serious landscape photographer be using a DSLR in the first place...?
Save up and buy a 2nd-hand half-plate camera (5x4") and do it properly...

Here's a couple of nice links to get you started - the second one even looks like TP so you won't feel lost...lol:
http://plate-camera.livejournal.com/

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/index.php?

 

[HoppyUK]

A silly question for several reasons. For starters, it is probable a really simple answer that I just didn't think off. Secondly, I might just have been looking in the wrong stores. And most of all, I'm not planning on buying a wide angle lens anyway

But as it has become an idle passtime of mine to look up all different kinds of lenses and trying to figure out why the price is what it is (high, low) and what you would shoot with those lenses...

I noticed there is very little in fast wide angle lenses. I found one 16-35 2.8 Canon wide angle zoom and all other were 3.5 at least.

In the prime wide angle there was more, but still not that much.

Why is that? Is it simply not that usefull to have a fast wide angle, is there no market, or don't you need such wide apertures?

It's not a wide-angle low-f/number thing, it's a primes vs zooms thing.

Eg, there are plenty of f/1.8 and f/1.4 wide-angle primes, but no zooms made below f/2.8 at all (outside of Olympus, but they cheat becasue they're only 4/3rds format).

The most difficult thing to do optically is really low f/numbers. Basically if you want below f/2.8, you lose the zoom capability.

 

[Bendihossan]

LOL! Well not everyone can afford a half plate or large format camera or understand how to use it for one and I have used medium format film for a while too but personally I find DSLRs more intuitive to use but that's just me. Joe Cornish gets fantastic results and I've got nothing against using film for shooting landscapes but that's got nothing to do with lens choices. As for moving my feet, I'm just saying the focal length of some wide primes may not suit the subject, not the tog's idle feet. For example that on the seafront or the edge of a cliff top you don't always have that luxury

 

[Ellekes]

For example that on the seafront or the edge of a cliff top you don't always have that luxury

Leap of faith....?

Sorry, I'm kind of losing the thread here. I have deduced that it is simple not economical to produce, but as for all the rest, I seem to have trouble just understanding the words, let alone the content

Thanks anyway for the info, and as soon as I have some more time available, I'm gonna really read through this and make sure I understand!