| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/26/2005 02:05:19 PM · #1 |
Which would you choose for your wide angle needs???
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 02:39:26 PM · #2 |
They are two entirely diffrent animals...
- The focal length ranges overlap so little that they are complementary, not competitive.
- The 17-40 is an L, the 10-22 is not. There will be significant differences in build quality.
- The 10-22 is EF-S, the 17-40 is not. If I upgrade to a 1.3 or 1.0 crop body, the 10-22 does me no good at all. If I never intend to make that upgrade, then no problema.
With that in mind, the 10-22 is somewhat attractive for very wide-angle work where a rectilinear perspective is required. I find, however, that objects are greatly distorted toward the edges of the frame with rectilinear lenses that wide. Try shooting a room full of people and look at the ones near the left and right edges... they look like they've instantly gained 100 pounds, they're stretched horizontally so much. I'd rather shoot with eihter the 17-40 or even the 24-70 and stitch a pano. Much better results, in more ways than one.
Where a singel image is required, but a rectilinear perspective is not a requirement, a 15mm fisheye is a great bet.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 03:47:01 PM · #3 |
try to make a few more threads on the same topic. three isn't enough.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 04:48:44 PM · #4 |
Be nice, jimmythefish...
I would also add that you could think about the 16-35mm f/2.8L.
Kirbic's answer is right on and the 17-40 f/4L is a highly desirable lens but if you deem it worth the investment and need fast glass the 16-35 might do the trick. It costs twice as much as the 17-40, though...
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 04:58:28 PM · #5 |
i'm trying...i've answered the same question twice in two other threads, started today, by this guy on the same topic.
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Be nice, jimmythefish... |
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 05:25:20 PM · #6 |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 05:27:15 PM · #7 |
I tried to post this thread last time, but got answers regarding the Tamron, so I made this one to the point.
Sorry.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 05:28:45 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by RickH:
I tried to post this thread last time, but got answers regarding the Tamron, so I made this one to the point.
Sorry. |
No problem, hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 05:53:55 PM · #9 |
I'd really like the 10-22mm but it seem a bit too pricey for non-L glass; plus I'd want it to be a little faster, maybe wash the dishes for me too :)
btw, I wish the powers that be would put a link on DPC's front page that let you search forums with more powerful/adaptable searches (um maybe even call it "Find an Answer", until that time we will see many duplicate posts and/or people digging through tons of messages.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 05:57:28 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ericsuth:
...btw, I wish the powers that be would put a link on DPC's front page that let you search forums with more powerful/adaptable searches (um maybe even call it "Find an Answer", until that time we will see many duplicate posts and/or people digging through tons of messages. |
Until this is implemented, I don't mind the questions...we're here to learn and share our passion of photography. People who don't like repeat questions just ignore the thread, instead of snapping at newcomers.
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 06:40:50 PM · #11 |
| hey doc , what do you think of that 17-40 4.0. I'm thinking about it or maybe 16-35 but my wife will kill me if i get that one |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 06:44:12 PM · #12 |
| I love my 17-40. I am sure the 10-22 is a decent lens but I still shoot some film so the 17-40 is the more versatile of the two. I can use it on my Elan series cameras, and use it well - at 17mm it is awesome. |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:01:11 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by TLL061:
hey doc , what do you think of that 17-40 4.0. I'm thinking about it or maybe 16-35 but my wife will kill me if i get that one |
LOL, what's more important? Your wife or having an L-lens? ;)
|
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:04:33 PM · #14 |
| I guess that I am somewhere in the middle of those two lens. I just pick up the Tokina 12-24 mm lens. Its good so far on just a few shots. I have to experiment some more soon. Here is the link to one of those shots if you are interested. Tokina 12-24 image |
|
|
|
03/26/2005 07:10:58 PM · #15 |
I'm still learning the game, but I thought I'd throw this out there as a potentially really inexpensive solution or just something to check out...
I've got the 70-200/2.8L, the 24-70/2.8L, a 50/1.8prime, 24/2.8prime, 35/2prime, and just recently I picked up the kit lens, the efs 18-50/3.5-5.6, with my 20d since it was effectively only $60. If you don't have it and you're looking for the wide angle and don't really need it to be to fast, this may help fill a gap for relatively little cash. So far, I've been happy with this little lens and it definitely works wide better than anything else for it price/performance ratio.
|
|
|
|
03/28/2005 03:40:21 PM · #16 |
| Doc , I think the lense , I already have two L lenses so why not not three |
|
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: 09/15/2025 10:00:54 AM EDT.
