Auto focus in wide angle lenses

[jhansman]

Wondering how important auto focus is to you wide shooters. I tend to shoot outdoors/landscapes, mostly from a tripod, and am considering adding a new UWA lens to my bag. Given the choice, would you pay the extra premium ($50 in this case) for auto focus in an UWA lens? Thanks.

 

[iGas]

Auto focus is not important for wide angle at all, if you know what you are doing.

Wide angle shooters tend to shoot at f/8, hence hyperfocus point (closest focus point to infinity) can be as little as 4 feet or less from camera to infinity, pending lens focal length.

Depth of Field Calculator

IMHO, the best lens to get is one with depth of field scale.

<--- old school.

 

[jhansman]

Auto focus is not important for wide angle at all, if you know what you are doing.

Wide angle shooters tend to shoot at f/8, hence hype focus point (closest focus point to infinity) can be as little as 4 feet or less from camera to infinity, pending lens focal length.

Depth of Field Calculator

IMHO, the best lens to get is one with depth of field scale.

<--- old school.

Thanks for the link; most helpful. I tend to agree, and feel that if I didn't have the "crutch" of AF, I'd be forced to learn about hyperfocal distance and the using the DOF scale. I have to remember my film days, when AF didn't exist, at least for me. Besides, my camera has an in-focus indicator when manually focusing, so I think I'd be good. Anyone else want to chime in with a different view?

BTW, the lens I'm looking at is the Tokina 11-16mm; it now comes in an model for bodies without a AF motor, which (of course) costs more.

 

[Syborg1211]

I don't know about what camera you have, but I sometimes have difficulty seeing the difference between a decently sharp picture and very sharp picture through the viewfinder or on the LCD of my camera. Maybe I have bad eyes, but I'd still like to have the crutch of letting it autofocus for at least some of my shots. That way you won't be disappointed when you get home and can see it better on your computer.

You can always set it to manual focus and learn that way, but you can't put the non-focus motored version on focus if you need it. I would say $50 is worth it. Love the Tokina 11-16 btw!

 

[corkyg]

Landscapes at wide angle are just about always at infinity. That's where AF will normally set it.

 

[jhansman]

I don't know about what camera you have, but I sometimes have difficulty seeing the difference between a decently sharp picture and very sharp picture through the viewfinder or on the LCD of my camera. Maybe I have bad eyes, but I'd still like to have the crutch of letting it autofocus for at least some of my shots. That way you won't be disappointed when you get home and can see it better on your computer.

You can always set it to manual focus and learn that way, but you can't put the non-focus motored version on focus if you need it. I would say $50 is worth it. Love the Tokina 11-16 btw!

Yes, I thought of that, too. Better to have it and not need it than the other way round. I have a D5100, which auto focuses pretty well in low light (when wide open). I'd like to think the focus indicator in the viewfinder will do what my eyes may not in low light. Glad to hear you like the lens so much. I found Ken Rockwell's comparison shots of it and the Nikkor 12-24mm very interesting. In his samples, the Tokina proved to be much sharper.

 

[CptObvious]

I owned a manual focus UWA (Samyang 14mm) on a Canon 5D. After that experience, I stick with auto-focus lenses or at least a focus chipped lens. It's true you can use hyperfocal distance for most landscape shots, but for close subject focusing it's a PITA to nail focus, even with an accurate distance scale and a matte focusing screen.

 

[PhoenixEnigma]

It kind of depends what you're trying to shoot - it could be somewhat helpful, or utterly useless.

I've done landscapes where it was so dark I couldn't see anything through the viewfinder at all (and AF was a complete lost cause). Focusing to infinity worked fine - in fact, a proper infinity stop would've been more valuable than AF.

On the other hand, some people shoot action sports and funky portraits and such with UWA and fisheye lenses. I'm sure you could get away with zone focusing and stopping down if you had to, but I'd imagine AF could come in handy as well, particularly since you can open that Tokina up quite a ways.

 

[jhansman]

I can imagine times when it would come in handy, and the extra $$ for it isn't that much when you (ulp!) consider the price tag of $750. I just don't want to have to sell my ass on the street to pay for it! Sigh. Decisions....

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I find that I turn off the AF on my 17-40 (mounted on my 5D) about half the time. Often I will AF once, then turn it off and leave it at the same distance while I get my shots. Handy for times when you're pointing the lens up at the featureless sky, etc. and would not be able to get an AF lock. So I do find the AF useful in a UWA, but UWA is also where I could see myself mostly getting by without it if I had to.