| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2005 07:22:00 PM · #1 |
Hi Folks,
Please give me some feedback on the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 USM IS and the EF-S 10-22mm USM in terms of the true experience not just the technical jargon.
Is it a good enough lense to properley do the hyperfocal thing? and is it a clear enough quality to get sharp images not soft ones?
I'm upgrading from an EF-S 18-55mm Kit lens which is soft and has no measurements on the focus.
I trust the opinions of the people here far more than any marketing release from Canon.
Thanks heaps,
Michael (groover) |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 07:51:49 PM · #2 |
I don't have either. Both are pretty new, not many people will have had direct experience with them. One thing is for sure. They don't fit on the majority of Canon cameras, and therefore resale value will be limited. There are lots of lenses available for your Rebel, why did you pick those two? What kind of shooting are you going to be doing?
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 08:53:31 PM · #3 |
You might try a rental. There is a store near us that rents lenses and I'm just dying for the right photo shoot to come along where I might need that 10-22. I'd like to try it out before I buy it. I think the rental was only something like $20-30 a day.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2005 06:07:27 PM · #4 |
the reason why I chose those were that I cannot afford an L series lens and I want a quality lens (not some generic brand substitute) that will allow me to do the hyperfocal thing.
being that I have the 1.6x multiplier the thought of wide lenses attract me so I can simply have a good walk-around lens always on and I do like IS in a lens as my 75-300 has IS.
no places around here do rental lenses for a respectable amount, I would have to travel at least an hour and a half to get anywhere that would. |
|
|
|
01/20/2005 07:35:04 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by groover:
the reason why I chose those were that I cannot afford an L series lens and I want a quality lens (not some generic brand substitute) that will allow me to do the hyperfocal thing.
being that I have the 1.6x multiplier the thought of wide lenses attract me so I can simply have a good walk-around lens always on and I do like IS in a lens as my 75-300 has IS.
no places around here do rental lenses for a respectable amount, I would have to travel at least an hour and a half to get anywhere that would. |
You can do the hyperfocal thing with any lens, cheap or expensive.
The 10-22 is more of a super wide-angle zoom then a walk-around lens.
The 17-85 is more in the range of a versatile walk-around but it's max aperture isn't very big, however IS makes up for this to a certain degree.
A lot of us that have Canon cameras with the 1.6 crop factor like your Rebel have gone for the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di as our walk-around. It's not IS but has a max aperture of 2.8 throughout the entire zoom range. Look at PhotoZone's Lens Test Guide and you'll see it rates right up there with the much more expensive Canon 24-70 f.8 L and the now discontinued Canon 28-70 2.8 L. Read the user reviews at Fred Miranda's and photographyreview.com to see what owners say about it.
Some people shy away from third party lens but this one is the exception. I use it as my walk-around and am very pleased with the sharpness I get from it. And IS is not a subsitute for true wide aperture.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2005 07:58:54 PM · #6 |
I've said this in some other threads, but I now have:
Canon EF-S 10-22
Canon 50 1.8 Version II
Canon 70-200/F4L
and the
Sigma 18-125
If I try to use any of the first three lenses when walking about I end up changing lenses a million times. Of those four lenses, the Sigma is my favorite. And I could go somewhere with just that lens, and not regret it. (Unless taking a pic of a boat race that's far away...)
The Sigma is the noisiest focusing, but it has good closeup range, and good distance range, excellent sharpness, little to no vignetting at wide. |
|
|
|
01/21/2005 01:05:39 AM · #7 |
thanks folks. I now have a true opinion from real people who use them. I guess I like the idea of a walk-around lens better than the 18-55 which is too soft, but there is the lure of true wide angle.
nshapiro brought up a great remark about constantly changing lenses and truth is, that Sigma covers the average use range as it is anyway.
thanks again, I'll investigate the costs of the Sigma and go for that if I can. |
|
|
|
01/21/2005 01:09:15 AM · #8 |
I forgot one of the best parts of the Sigma: it costs around $250 (and comes with a hood).
Also: this wasn't out when I purchased, but if it's as good as the Sigma in quality, it has better range.
Tamon 18-200
Message edited by author 2005-01-21 01:11:54. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 10:53:11 AM EDT.
