| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/03/2012 03:14:49 PM · #1 |
| HA!! I am on a crazy shopping spree!! ;) Since I gave up on MKIII and spent much less on MKII than expected I am thinking about selling my 10-22mm EF-S on eBay (probably will get about $500 for it) and get 16-35mm EF. Anyone had both and knows how these 2 lenses compare? |
|
|
|
04/03/2012 03:46:14 PM · #2 |
| Well since you cannot use the EF-S lens on your new full frame MK II the 16-35mm will cover the same range as the 10-22mm, accounting for the 1.6 crop factor on the old camera. I don't have either of those lenses, but have you considered the 17-40mm? It's about half the price of the 16-35mm. |
|
|
|
04/03/2012 04:19:50 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by franktheyank:
Well since you cannot use the EF-S lens on your new full frame MK II the 16-35mm will cover the same range as the 10-22mm, accounting for the 1.6 crop factor on the old camera. I don't have either of those lenses, but have you considered the 17-40mm? It's about half the price of the 16-35mm. |
I have but I read that it is not as sharp. 82mm filter is annoying too but after owning 70-200mm f4 for a while I value the sharpness a lot so I don't quite know what to do. 17-40 would definitely make the upgrade much easier financially! :) |
|
|
|
04/03/2012 05:33:41 PM · #4 |
i love my 16-35, although my 28-70 and 70-200 also fall into this category gotta love L glass, so sharp and detailed, always in my bag no matter what
shot last night hand held on a old 20D at iso 400 1/50 second 2.8
most my highest scores are on it,
     
Message edited by author 2012-04-03 17:35:03. |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 03:39:57 PM · #5 |
| Thanks, Frank and Giles. After reading heaps of reviews and opinions I have decided to put the replacement of 10-22mm on hold. I will need first to get used to FF 5D and do some comparison shots with 550D before I spend any more money. |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 03:56:09 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I will need first to get used to FF 5D and do some comparison shots with 550D before I spend any more money. |
I htink that's a great decision. FF surely is a different world.
FWIW, when I made the switch (from 10D to the original 5D) in September, 2005 I already had the 15mm fish, but the widest rectilinear lens I had was the 24-70. I finally bought the 17-40 to try out the idea of a wider rectilinear lens. I got a good deal from another DPCer, and I figured I'd use it and decide if it was worth investing in the 16-35. What I've found is that I don't use the 17-40 nearly as much as I use the 24-70. If I'm doing landscapes and want *wide* I will normally stitch from the 24-70. I prefer the additional detail. It will be some time before I make a decision on whether to add a better WA zoom or prime.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2012 04:03:18 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I will need first to get used to FF 5D and do some comparison shots with 550D before I spend any more money. |
I htink that's a great decision. FF surely is a different world.
FWIW, when I made the switch (from 10D to the original 5D) in September, 2005 I already had the 15mm fish, but the widest rectilinear lens I had was the 24-70. I finally bought the 17-40 to try out the idea of a wider rectilinear lens. I got a good deal from another DPCer, and I figured I'd use it and decide if it was worth investing in the 16-35. What I've found is that I don't use the 17-40 nearly as much as I use the 24-70. If I'm doing landscapes and want *wide* I will normally stitch from the 24-70. I prefer the additional detail. It will be some time before I make a decision on whether to add a better WA zoom or prime. |
This has been my experience as well. I immediately got the (affordable) 17-40 when I went FF, but since I added the 24-105mm I rarely mount the 17-40...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2012 04:32:07 PM · #8 |
| Thanks, Fritz and Robert! :) |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 04:34:50 PM · #9 |
One interesting fact to remember... as you go really wide with rectilinear lenses, you gain (a lot) less than you'd think in additional angle-of-view. A 24mm lens gives an 84° FOV, and a 17mm lens gives 104°. So you get an additional 20°, or about 23% additional FOV. As you go even wider, the gains diminish even further.
Here's another odd fact. We all know that rectilinear lenses keep straight lines straight, and that fisheye lenses result in straight lines that seem to curve. But did you know that rectilinear lenses result in circles that are oblong at the corners of the frame, while in a fisheye lens, a circle will always remain a circle?
ETA: this is why people near the edges (especially the corners) of a WA frame are distorted. The effect is particularly undesirable because it causes folks at the left and right extremes of landscape-oriented group shots to be stretched horizontally, a particularly unflattering result!
Message edited by author 2012-04-04 16:37:56.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2012 05:29:28 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I will need first to get used to FF 5D and do some comparison shots with 550D before I spend any more money. |
I htink that's a great decision. FF surely is a different world.
FWIW, when I made the switch (from 10D to the original 5D) in September, 2005 I already had the 15mm fish, but the widest rectilinear lens I had was the 24-70. I finally bought the 17-40 to try out the idea of a wider rectilinear lens. I got a good deal from another DPCer, and I figured I'd use it and decide if it was worth investing in the 16-35. What I've found is that I don't use the 17-40 nearly as much as I use the 24-70. If I'm doing landscapes and want *wide* I will normally stitch from the 24-70. I prefer the additional detail. It will be some time before I make a decision on whether to add a better WA zoom or prime. |
This has been my experience as well. I immediately got the (affordable) 17-40 when I went FF, but since I added the 24-105mm I rarely mount the 17-40...
R. |
Interesting, I seem to be the complete opposite of you two. If I am given a choice of using either the 17-40 or the 24-105 lens for a WA landscape, I almost always reach for the 17-40. Not just because I can fit a little bit more into the 17mm field of view, but I rather like that additional "expanded" look I get with the wider lens for a landscape.
I've been pretty happy with my 17-40 and find it reasonably sharp too (can't say I've had to squeeze many people into the corners with it). I only found myself wishing for the 16-35 the other day when I was shooting a starry skied landscape and with f4.0 being the fastest I could go I was forced to shoot at ISO 6400. That extra stop on the 16-35 seemed it would be very useful that night... |
|
|
|
04/04/2012 05:39:04 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I will need first to get used to FF 5D and do some comparison shots with 550D before I spend any more money. |
I htink that's a great decision. FF surely is a different world.
FWIW, when I made the switch (from 10D to the original 5D) in September, 2005 I already had the 15mm fish, but the widest rectilinear lens I had was the 24-70. I finally bought the 17-40 to try out the idea of a wider rectilinear lens. I got a good deal from another DPCer, and I figured I'd use it and decide if it was worth investing in the 16-35. What I've found is that I don't use the 17-40 nearly as much as I use the 24-70. If I'm doing landscapes and want *wide* I will normally stitch from the 24-70. I prefer the additional detail. It will be some time before I make a decision on whether to add a better WA zoom or prime. |
I have found this to be the case for me as well. Don't get me wrong, I loved my 17-40 with it being lightweight and a contrast/color superstar. With that being said, I also have the 24-70 F2.8L and have found that I grab that 9/10 for most situations and is still plenty wide (15mm equiv. on APS-C which is wider than I had before anyways). There are still time's I'd still want the extra reach, but having the 2.8 f-stop won out in the end and is less mushy in the corners than the 17-40 was. I sold that lens and bought a laptop because it was a greater need for my photography than having the little extra reach at this time. Also, with all the being said, I will eventually get the 16-35! Hope this helps (I tend to babble in stream of consciousness). |
|
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: 11/02/2025 04:54:25 PM EST.
