Lenses Queries (Canon)

boccers_2000

boccers_2000

Messages
379
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys.

First Point:

The situation is that I have a 500D and a 10-22mm Lens.

Love the lens but thinking of selling it and getting a 17-40mm L Lens (mainly becuase I may want to go full frame on the camera front and also just to have some L Glass (I know, pathetic reason).

Any views on the swap? Thoughts on it in general much appreciated (I know i'll be getting less in the wide angle front but hoping that if I go full frame that argument would be offset a little given that with a 1.6 cropped body it isnt actually a 10-22mm).

Second point:

Considering getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0 L USM (can be had for just under £500 on amazon but still looking about). Anyone got this and have a view on it? My main worry is lack of IS.

Oh and in considering the above my current lens bag consists of Kit Lens (18-55mm), 50mm 1.8 and 10-22mm.

Oh and if anyone is thinking about getting the 10-22mm and has a 17-40 they may consider swapping, let me know and lets discuss lol.

Thats all folks.
 
Well I'm not sure what you want us to say on point one other than yes, it's a good idea to swap to the 17-40L if you go to full frame if you want to keep that focal length as the crop factor for 10-22 is 16-35. Plus, 10-22mm is an EF-S lens anyway and will not work on full frame. i've owned the 17-40L. Lovely lens. Amazing build, weather sealed and great Image quality, but for me personally, I used it as a walkaround lens on crop and didn't get on with the lack of focal range at the long end and slow speed (f4).

As for the 70-200mm f/4. Another great lens. Good compromise on size/weight whilst still having fantastic image quality. I'm sure you know the answer about IS....it's always going to be beneficial in a telephoto zoom, and especially when you are restricted to f/4. However, it's completely dependant on what you want to shoot. I found when I owned a telephoto zoom I tended to want to capture moving subjects and hence f/2.8 was more important to have the faster glass.

What do you want to shoot? Budget? Are you DEFINITELY going to move to full frame? What about a walkabout zoon lens on full frame - this would overlap the investment in the 17-40L focal length?
 
I can't comment on the UWA and WA lenses, but I do have the 70 - 200mm f4.0. Superb lens, and the best value for money in the L range IMHO. I didn't get the IS version because I couldn't afford it, but I suppose it's worth the money if you can. The f4.0s are much lighter than the f2.8s, if that's a consideration.

I don't really know how much of a drawback the lack of IS is. I lived in South Africa when I bought mine and the light is usually much stronger/brighter than in the UK, and I've only used it a few times here. I did manage to get sharp results at 1/60 and 200mm in a wood by using ISO 400 and my beanie folded on a branch as a rest.
 
clicktor said:
Well I'm not sure what you want us to say on point one other than yes, it's a good idea to swap to the 17-40L if you go to full frame if you want to keep that focal length as the crop factor for 10-22 is 16-35. Plus, 10-22mm is an EF-S lens anyway and will not work on full frame. i've owned the 17-40L. Lovely lens. Amazing build, weather sealed and great Image quality, but for me personally, I used it as a walkaround lens on crop and didn't get on with the lack of focal range at the long end and slow speed (f4).

As for the 70-200mm f/4. Another great lens. Good compromise on size/weight whilst still having fantastic image quality. I'm sure you know the answer about IS....it's always going to be beneficial in a telephoto zoom, and especially when you are restricted to f/4. However, it's completely dependant on what you want to shoot. I found when I owned a telephoto zoom I tended to want to capture moving subjects and hence f/2.8 was more important to have the faster glass.

What do you want to shoot? Budget? Are you DEFINITELY going to move to full frame? What about a walkabout zoon lens on full frame - this would overlap the investment in the 17-40L focal length?
Click to expand...

I love shooting landscapes and architecture but ideally id like a good set of lenses that can turn their hand to most types of photography. Right now the upper length of my range is 55mm (which really isnt high) hence the 70-200mm requirement.

My budget is £500 (ie to but the 70-200mm) and excahnge or sell the 10-22 and get the 17-40.

As for the full frame, yes, I will be moving to full frame but not for another 6 months or so (to save the money). I dont want to seel my 500D (i'll use it as a back up) but will be buying a 5D Mk II (body only)
 
MartynK said:
I can't comment on the UWA and WA lenses, but I do have the 70 - 200mm f4.0. Superb lens, and the best value for money in the L range IMHO. I didn't get the IS version because I couldn't afford it, but I suppose it's worth the money if you can. The f4.0s are much lighter than the f2.8s, if that's a consideration.

I don't really know how much of a drawback the lack of IS is. I lived in South Africa when I bought mine and the light is usually much stronger/brighter than in the UK, and I've only used it a few times here. I did manage to get sharp results at 1/60 and 200mm in a wood by using ISO 400 and my beanie folded on a branch as a rest.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think i'm going to have to get this lens. Value for what you get seems to be right up there.
 
17-40 is a great lens. I love mine either as a extra wide full frame lens or as a semi wide lens on a crop. I use mine for landscapes on a tripod where IS isn't required and f4 is more than fast enough. Weather sealing is another big plus point for me as I'm out in all weather.

If you're asking about exchanging your 10-22 for a 17-40 just because you want an L lens and you're going to keep shooting with your crop camera then I think you're going to find a hell of a lot missing at the wide end. Also if you want to use it on a crop as a general 'less wide' lens then you can find better alternatives.
 
I'm not sure you'll gain much going from the swap of 10-22 to 17-40. Have a look here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2 at the resolution vs aperture and they are much of a muchness. I'd put the move to 17-40 on hold until you go full frame.

Second question is are you missing much above 55mm. That is, how often do you need more reach? I have a 70-200F4 and love it to bits, although I don't often use it. It is razor sharp and whilst I would like IS, I don't get enough use out of it to justify that (I'd probably want 2.8 over IS in that range to squeeze another halving of shutter speed, but the 2.8's are HEAVY and I wouldn't carry it because of that).

Perhaps a third alternative would be a change of the 18-55 for something to use as a walkabout on full frame. As you have the 10-22mm range covered, you could go for 24-70 2.8L or 24-105 f4L. You'd need another £100-300 to get one second hand and you may find that the loss of 17-24 on the full frame lens means you are swapping around a lot. However, you would then have your walkabout for when you swapped to 5DII.

Bear in mind though that all of these lenses will make the 500D seem quite small in your hands and it may feel like you have a lens with a camera attached rather than the other way around....
 
arad85 said:
I'm not sure you'll gain much going from the swap of 10-22 to 17-40. Have a look here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2 at the resolution vs aperture and they are much of a muchness. I'd put the move to 17-40 on hold until you go full frame.

Second question is are you missing much above 55mm. That is, how often do you need more reach? I have a 70-200F4 and love it to bits, although I don't often use it. It is razor sharp and whilst I would like IS, I don't get enough use out of it to justify that (I'd probably want 2.8 over IS in that range to squeeze another halving of shutter speed, but the 2.8's are HEAVY and I wouldn't carry it because of that).

Perhaps a third alternative would be a change of the 18-55 for something to use as a walkabout on full frame. As you have the 10-22mm range covered, you could go for 24-70 2.8L or 24-105 f4L. You'd need another £100-300 to get one second hand and you may find that the loss of 17-24 on the full frame lens means you are swapping around a lot. However, you would then have your walkabout for when you swapped to 5DII.

Bear in mind though that all of these lenses will make the 500D seem quite small in your hands and it may feel like you have a lens with a camera attached rather than the other way around....
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I take the point about the size of the 500D. I may bulk it up with a battery grip (needed anyway as im off to Japan soon to wander about for 2 weeks and will need the extra gas.

I think that I will wait until I go full frame before going 17-40 and when I do will offload the 10-22 and also pick up a 70-200.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top