| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/04/2005 02:25:54 PM · #1 |
I'm in the market for a wide angle lens as well as a telephoto. Here is what I was looking at for my Canon EOS-20D:
Wide Angle
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM ($729 @ Amazon)
or
EF-S 10-22MM f/3.5-4.5 USM ($799 @ Amazon)
The 10-22 will have a wider angle on my DSLR than the 16-35 and is made for the non-full frame sensor of the 20D... but the 16-35 is an L lens with superior glass quality although not as wide.
What way would you go?
On the telephoto side I am looking at picking up the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ($589 @ Amazon). Anyone have exprience with this or have any recomendations?
Thanks |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 02:28:14 PM · #2 |
I'm undecided between the 16-35 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8 Both are supposedly very good lens. I have used the 24-70 but not the 16-35.
As for telephoto, 70-200 IS of course ;)
Try B&H at www.bhphotovideo.com. Very good service.
Message edited by author 2005-05-04 14:29:11. |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 02:28:55 PM · #3 |
| I own the 16-35L 2.8, sadly the 17-40L does not rival the 16-35 when it comes to sharpness and speed, it has some vignetting. HOWEVER I think that the 17-40 is a far better lens then the 10-22. |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 02:42:36 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 02:48:12 PM · #5 |
On the telephoto side I am looking at picking up the EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ($589 @ Amazon). Anyone have exprience with this or have any recomendations?
I was at a lake taking photos of birds the other day and started up a conversation with a guy from Italy. We were comparing lens his the 70-200mm f/4L mine the 75-300mm. He was not very happy with the reach he had for shooting wildlife. The lens I have is ok but you will get a much sharper image with the L lens. In the future I think I will go with the L lens. You just have to decide how much reach you desire compared to $$$ YOU WANT TO SPEND |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 02:49:59 PM · #6 |
Not everyone agrees that the 16-35 is sharper than the 17-40. According to a comparison at luminous landscape, the 17-40 was sharper at f4 while the 16-35 was sharper at f8.
Originally posted by Gil P:
I own the 16-35L 2.8, sadly the 17-40L does not rival the 16-35 when it comes to sharpness and speed, it has some vignetting. HOWEVER I think that the 17-40 is a far better lens then the 10-22. |
|
|
|
|
05/04/2005 02:51:36 PM · #7 |
Agreed. I decided to go with the 70-200 f4L and a 1.4x teleconverter to get about the same reach as the 75-300.
Originally posted by PhotoRyno:
I was at a lake taking photos of birds the other day and started up a conversation with a guy from Italy. We were comparing lens his the 70-200mm f/4L mine the 75-300mm. He was not very happy with the reach he had for shooting wildlife. The lens I have is ok but you will get a much sharper image with the L lens. In the future I think I will go with the L lens. You just have to decide how much reach you desire compared to $$$ YOU WANT TO SPEND |
|
|
|
|
05/04/2005 03:02:33 PM · #8 |
You certainly can't go wrong with the 70-200 f/4 L, unless you really need f/2.8 and the price doesn't bother you. For WA, again, if over double the cost is not an issue, then the 16-35 gains you one stop and 1mm for an extra $750, but the 17-40 is ver well respected.
Either the 17-40 or 16-35 is a great choice, I would take the 17-40 any day over the 10-22. For WA, sharpness is paramount. The 17-40 has it all over the 10-22, and besides, 10mm is really TOO wide in a rectilinear lens, there is so much stretching at the edges. |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 03:03:05 PM · #9 |
| Has anyone utilized the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM? It's very expensive (>$2k) but I am impressed at the range it can do (28-300mm). |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 05:23:15 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by sage:
The 10-22 will have a wider angle on my DSLR than the 16-35 and is made for the non-full frame sensor of the 20D... but the 16-35 is an L lens with superior glass quality although not as wide.
What way would you go?
Thanks |
actually the 10-22 has exactly the same focallenght on 20D as the 16-35 has on the 1Ds.
the 10-22 is an EF-S lens and if you multiply 10-22 with the cropfactor of the 20D wich is 1,6 then you will have a 16-35 lens, just not L quality :)
the 17-40 s great, got one and will never trade it in. the 70-200L is great too, I have the f2.8 IS model and threre are NO zoomlenses that outperform the 70-200L f2.8 IS in any way :)
so if you take the 17-40L and 70-200L f4 then you will have a superb combo, the only thing missing is the 50mm f1.4 for low light :) |
|
|
|
05/04/2005 06:24:37 PM · #11 |
I say buy all the EF/L lenses, then give me the ones you don't want.
Message edited by author 2005-05-04 18:26:22.
|
|
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: 09/16/2025 01:09:25 PM EDT.
