Fast wide angle lenses - worth the extra money?

[joneakinsphotography]

I am considering the purchase of a ultra wide angle lens - either the Sigma 10mm-20mm f3.5 (here - Amazon.com: Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ELD SLD Aspherical Super Wide Angle Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics) or the Sigma 10mm-20mm f4-5.6 (here - Amazon.com: Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics).

As best I can tell the biggest differences are the maximum aperture and the $170 difference in price. It seems to me that this type of lens is almost always used for landscapes and other views of things that aren't moving very much if at all (which is what I intend to use it for). The difference between the f3.5 and f4.0 at 10mm doesn't seem like a big deal, but the difference between f3.5 and f5.6 at 20mm can make a difference.

Does anyone have experience with ultra wide angle lenses enough to know whether the faster lens would be worth the extra $170?

[sk66]

In general, you do not need as fast a lens to get a clean shot handheld with shorter lenses... at 10mm 1/10 is "fast enough" to eliminate shake blur and that's pretty slow...
But it's not nearly fast enough to stop any kind of motion blur.

And keep in mind 1 f/stop is equal to 2x ISO speed.

It's a matter of what suits you best.

[joneakinsphotography]

That is a good point about stopping motion. I can only imagine a very few scenarios when I would want to stop motion with a lens that wide, but those scenarios would require a really fast lens (f/2.8 or faster). I'm into landscapes and urban/architecture photography mostly and if those subjects start moving I'm probably going to run for cover rather than take pictures...

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by joneakinsphotography

That is a good point about stopping motion. I can only imagine a very few scenarios when I would want to stop motion with a lens that wide, but those scenarios would require a really fast lens (f/2.8 or faster). I'm into landscapes and urban/architecture photography mostly and if those subjects start moving I'm probably going to run for cover rather than take pictures...

I think for what you want to use it for the slower of the two should be fine. We have a Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 which we will use for shooting weddings and for real estate interiors...it is those times that you are glad to have a fast lens. Besides price, which is always a factor, you should also compare the two as to how well they perform optically. If the more expensive lens is just a better all around lens than the less expensive one you might want to go for the extra bucks. Camera bodies come and go, but good glass is an investment that will give you many years of good performance...and that you have to put a value on.

Vince

[BCampbell]

It depends on what you're shooting. For landscapes, you'll usually be stopped down, so it's not quite as much of an issue; you're going to be more concerned with center and corner sharpness, chromatic aberration, distortion, etc.

I shoot a lot of urbex, which involves low-light indoor shots. The 50mm f/1.8 on a cropped body doesn't really capture the grand scape of some indoor spaces, and to use something slower I really need a tripod. I'd love to be able to use the 16-35mm f/2.8L handheld. In any case, I'd probably still want a tripod for some trickier shots.

The other advantage of fast glass is that a lens with a wider maximum aperture generally reaches peak sharpness at a wider aperture than a slower lens. Though in the case of something like L glass, the optical quality makes that sort of a moot point, but in the case of the lenses you're looking at, the f/4-5.6 doesn't reach peak sharpness until around f/8-11, while the f/3.5 peaks around f/5.6. This will vary depending on where in the frame you're looking, and your focal length, but it's a general guide.

[joneakinsphotography]

Another good point about the sharpness. With what I'm planning on shooting, I"ll be alot closer to the smallest aperture than the largest for maximum depth of field. I almost always use a tripod for any of my outdoor stuff now anyhow, so I'm used to having it around even if I did need it for something like architectural interiors. And like landscapes, the architectural interior isn't moving around too much (hopefully) so I wouldn't be trying to stop any movement. Both lenses have been highly rated on amazon, so it looks like either would be a good choice.