Another which Wide Angle question - but slightly different

T

taxboy

Messages
2,022
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking for some suggestions for a new lens for my EOS 40D. I asked about the Tamron 17-50 last year and received some helpful advice http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=130487&highlight=tamron However I've managed to scrape together some more cash and have been tempted by the UWA look from the Canon 10-22

My question is do I go for the 17-50 Tamron sell the 28-105 and if I still hanker after an UWA go for the Canon even though it will provide quite a bit of overlap in the focal length range, or do I keep the 28-105 buy the UWA and live with the shortfall with focal lengths :thinking:

Any alternative suggestions also appreciated
 
I went for a combination of the Tokina 11-16 and Canon 17-55. I am really pleased with the combination but particularly like the Tokina - the build quality is amazing and it's sharp. Whilst I like the Canon lens, I can see why people go for L glass, if not for the image quality, for the build quality. I also value the f2.8 as it aids with low light focussing. The IS on the 17-55 was very useful for indoor work, especially where no flash was allowed at several historic attractions. I was amazed by how low a shutter speed I could get away with at times. Incidentally I bought both lenses second hand but in mint condition and am confident that I could sell them on without losing much or anything if I wanted to (which I don't) so not much risk in trying them this way.
 
I had a 10-22mm when I shot Canon and it was a stunning lens, in fact it was rarely off my camera. Sharp, well built, great low light focussing etc, I couldn't fault it at all. If I shot Canon still then I'd buy one tomorrow. Plus they hold their money really well so either buy new and lose very little or buy used and lose nothing.
 
Overlapping focal lengths are better than gaps - foot zooming isn't always a viable option and it can be handy to drop down (or climb up) into the next lens's range rather than have to chop and change.

Having said that, if you're particularly after ultra wide angles, is 17mm going to be wide enough to satisfy your need for width?
 
Nod said:
Overlapping focal lengths are better than gaps - foot zooming isn't always a viable option and it can be handy to drop down (or climb up) into the next lens's range rather than have to chop and change.

Having said that, if you're particularly after ultra wide angles, is 17mm going to be wide enough to satisfy your need for width?
Click to expand...

I'm leaning towards that way of thinking but never having used anything as wide as the Canon UWA before perhaps I need to rent one before splashing out ?
 
What type of photography do you enjoy doing?
There is no doubt that the Canon 10-22 is fantastic lens but I certainly wouldn't make it my only lens.
Do you mean the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS as I can't find a 28-105.
The Tamron 17-50 isn't a super wide angle lens.
 
hashcake said:
What type of photography do you enjoy doing?
There is no doubt that the Canon 10-22 is fantastic lens but I certainly wouldn't make it my only lens.
Do you mean the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS as I can't find a 28-105.
The Tamron 17-50 isn't a super wide angle lens.
Click to expand...

I'm into garden photography but looking to expand into landscape & architecture

The 28-105 is getting on an bit now I had it from my film camera days. Link here
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28zooms.html
 
If you want the ulta-wide look (which is what you said) then you need the 10-22. Oustanding lens.

Then you want the 17-55 2.8. Don't worry about the overlap. Unless you like changing lenses all the time, it's a blessing.
 
I can only say good things about the 10-22. It's sharp, has very little distortion, wonderful colour and contrast and it doesn't lose value. I love it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top