On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:35:27 GMT, drgreenlee@mindspring.com (Dave Greenlee) wrote:
>tedc@xcaliber.com wrote:

>>As a fairly new photographer (1 year), I am looking for opinions
>>on a wide angle lens.
[....]

>The Nikkor 20-35/2.8 is good, but (as you know) rather pricey.
>Previously suggested alternatives 24/2.8, 20/2.8 and Tokina 20-35/2.8
>are all good possibilities, but share a basic limitation. At f/2.8,
>all are marginal in low light situations. I would suggest you balance
>any choice with the additional purchase of a fast lens such as 35/1.4,
>50/1.4 or 85/1.4. If you ever have to do flash work in a dim room,
>you'll understand why a lens that gets 4x as much light to your
>eyeball can be very useful.

While the above is true (and I wouldn't eagerly use any of the first
four mentioned at stops wider than f5.6, for image-quality reasons),
wides can be hand-held at relatively slow speeds (a 1/15th of a second
with a 20mm is not difficult, and 1/4 is quite possible), and if they are used at normal distances from subjects, the slow shutter speeds do not pose much of a problem with most subject movement. As a result, I consider my 16mm fisheye f3.5 lens (good "wide" open) a real "speed demon"...;-) Under low-light conditions, a 50mm f1.4 (sharp by f2) would need to be used at 1/30th at f2 minimum, giving an equivalent (fairly easy) f5.6 at 1/4 for the 20mm, or about equal effective speed. 'Course a 28mm f1.4 or 28mm f2.8 AIS (both good enough at
f2.8 and hand-holdable around 1/15th are also about the same "speed"
(though the f1.4 is good enough wider to make it even faster...). An
85mm f1.4 (good at f1.4) can be used at a 1/60th with a very steady
hand, giving it about the same effective speed as most of the others.
Lenses like the Nikkor 16mm f3.5, 28mm f1.4, 35mm f2 AIS, and 35mm f1.4 do give you a bit of a speed edge for "available-darkness"
photography due to their more easily hand-held short FL's and their
useability at wide stops.