| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/30/2005 12:02:29 AM · #1 |
Is the 17-40L better than the 10-22mm on a Rebel XT for walk around shooting that will include family oriented shooting??? Kids and large family shots.
Thanks again.
Rick |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:27:24 AM · #2 |
| If you want the best possible photo, yes. If the photos are for snap shot type then probably not worth the cost. I shoot for pay so I want the best. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:41:13 AM · #3 |
The 17-40 becomes equivalent to a 27-64 lens whereas the 10-22 becomes a 16-35 on your Rebel. As an all purpose walk around lens the focal lengths provided by the 17-40 would be better. It all depends on how you shoot.
In terms of picture quality the 17-40 is miles ahead.
Message edited by author 2005-03-30 00:42:15.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:45:42 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by gwphoto:
If you want the best possible photo, yes. If the photos are for snap shot type then probably not worth the cost. I shoot for pay so I want the best. |
The Canon 17-40mm f/4L is actually CHEAPER than the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens by about US$120
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:10:03 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:14:10 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by RickH:
Bump |
I'd get the Canon 17-40mm f/4L :)
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 12:21:13 PM · #7 |
Absolutely, get the 17-40!
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:08:38 PM · #8 |
I have the Sigma 12-24, and it's sooooo short: I don't use it very often. And it's darn slow at f4.5-5.6, so it's hard to get sharp images of people indoors without a flash, or at least bright window lighting. It rocks for architectural stuff, especially on a tripod.
I just shot a wedding for a friend as a "second shooter", and their "semi-pro" used the 17-40L which, with the slightly faster and constant f4, seemed a perfect lens for an indoor wedding.
|
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:48:31 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by alanbataar:
I just shot a wedding for a friend as a "second shooter", and their "semi-pro" used the 17-40L which, with the slightly faster and constant f4, seemed a perfect lens for an indoor wedding. |
F4 is not really fast enough for indoor. 16-35 F2.8L, definitely.
To answer RickH's question, the 17-40 covers a MUCH more useful range. The 10-22 will give you very strange wide-angle effects, no good for portraits! The 17-40 is a great walkaround lens. Higher quality optics, and for some strange reason, it costs less!
I'd reserve the 10-22 for landscapes and such, not for family/walkaround.
Message edited by author 2005-03-30 13:50:40. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 01:52:40 PM · #10 |
| In that price range, I'd consider the Canon 17-85 IS. It's not as sharp as the 17-40 f/4L, but the zoom range is far more usable for general walkaround purposes, and the IS will help in low light situations. |
|
|
|
03/30/2005 02:26:37 PM · #11 |
From what I have seen the two are very similar in image quality (owned the 17-40 and used a borrowed 10-22 for a couple of days). I doubt you would see much difference as far as image quality is concerned based on my personal experience. The FL range is pretty different between the two and I think that is the main area you should be paying attention to. Also the 17-40 feels more rugged and has the rubber ring on the lens mount though I believe it needs a front UV filter to be "sealed."
Tom
|
|
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 05:05:33 PM EDT.
