Purpose of a fast UWA?

What Mansalim said and the simple fact that you can take handheld pictures easier low light situations.
If I get an UWA this would be the one for sure..

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11918642
Can't please everyone I guess...

Made the point with the OP though.

Have you been to Fantasy of Flight an hour or so outside Orlando, FL?

Andrew_WOT wrote in post #11918358
Don't you need longer shutter speed to capture star trails, meaning you would need significantly stop lens down, fail to see how faster aperture helps there.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #11918628
Not necessarily. Most people these days take a bunch of 20-30 second shots then stack them.

And even if you don't stack and do a single long exposure, you'll still use a wide aperture to get as much light in as possible because the light sources will move across the sensor - that's the whole point.

Refresh Image wrote in post #11918381
Why would have you wished for a 2.8 aperture if you did no max out the aperture of your 10-22 in this case ? You still had 1.5 stops to go.

That was an outdoor daytime concert.

Alex_Venom wrote in post #11917044

Tokina 11-16 > all

nice shot...but you shot it at f4

personally i don't see the point of a fast UWA...but then again i'm usually stopped down whenever i use mine...so it all depends on what you use it for...to me it sounds like the o.p. doesn't need one either

DreDaze wrote in post #11919699
personally i don't see the point of a fast UWA...but then again i'm usually stopped down whenever i use mine...so it all depends on what you use it for...to me it sounds like the o.p. doesn't need one either

Same. Most times I'm at f/8-16 on a wide angle lens anyway. I don't see the point in spending a significant amount of money for a "premium" aperture that I most likely will never use.

And if I really need to isolate the subject, I'll use a 1.8 prime.

I use mine for more than landscapes and I am indoors alot, so 2.8 made sense. I also use mine for some fun perspective shots so the 2.8 is valuable... for me.
The first shot below was with the fiance's Rebel, so I didn't want to go above ISO800. The second shot was on a 7D and I was already at ISO 3200. At times like these when I do not want to use flash, having the that extra stop is nice. Not EVERYONE finds it useful, but I do.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11916739
You can still isolate details in the foreground shooting wide open with a WA or UWA lens...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

5Dc + 17-40mm f/4L .. 1/40 @ f/4 ISO 100

Excellent point made

Here’s another apt example. 16-35 MKII, handheld f/8

Refresh Image wrote in post #11918635
One either blurs the background almost completely or does not blur it at all. I little blur with a busy background is the worst possible combination.

I don't completely disagree with the point you're making, but I think it also depends on the photo.

In my opinion, if the background had been blurred any further it would have taken away from the image. Having the plane recognizable helps set the scene but also focuses attention on a point in the foreground. If the shot had been at say f/1.8 then I imagine the wing of the plane would have just faded into an indistinguishable blur of nothing. I think that would have taken away from being able to identify the overall image, leaving an overall "WTF am I looking at?" kind of impression.

Just my .02 worth.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11916739
You can still isolate details in the foreground shooting wide open with a WA or UWA lens...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

5Dc + 17-40mm f/4L .. 1/40 @ f/4 ISO 100

I could tell what it was split second.