That is funny Ben about the 2.8, I've used it on several occasions and have enjoyed it. I originally was swayed to the f4 IS because of the lighter weight but then I got used to carrying around my 100-400, so the 2.8 won't really bother me much. I'm used to having a batt grip attached to my 20D or 5D II so the weights are pretty similar to lugging around a 1D series. I think it balances out a lens like the 100-400 or 2.8 IS more evenly, even though the overall weight is greater.
I tried shaking my f4 IS and I never really noticed the click sound before (then again, I've never really shook my lens like that before!). I noticed a much more pronounced sound when I shook the lens in a vertical position and not so much in a horizontal position. Why that would be, I'm not sure. Is it because the IS unit's stabilizers move a little less in the horizontal position? I doubt it though...
Hey if ain't broke...
Bill
Bill,
I was commented before on my limited physical ability of carrying heay stuff - that's why I haven't come to own any lens that weighs more than 1kg. But you're totally correct, a heavy lens like the 70-200/2.8L IS will balance the weight of the camera more evenly, and you'll be even more correct to own the 70-200/2.8L IS as long as you don't feel it's too much of a burden to you - because it's optically magnificent.
I'm not sure about the exact reason why lenses click when being shaked. I notice the click sound on almost all lenses that I have ever shaked, they're different from each other. I think that certainly has something to do with its moving parts inside, like the focusing lens group, and indeed, the IS. My 70-200/4L IS has a slightly more pronounced sound when shaking horizontally. I think I'll go to a local shop today to shake their 70-200/4L ISs see what they sound like (hopefully i won't be kicked out because of doing that on their lenses). My lens may sound louder than others, but as long as the lens works fine, I won't take any action.
Benjamin
As promised here is pretty much the first shot to come out of the 10-22mm. So far it's behaving well and I'm extremely happy with the new options is has introduced into my photography.
40D, 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 @ 10mm, F/14. 7 images merged to HDR in photomatix. Enjoy
I like the picture, Ben! The HDR is cool. :-) Is this near your home?
ShutterbugJohan: I like the picture, Ben! The HDR is cool. :-) Is this near your home?
Yes Johan it's about 15 km's from my home. Normally it's completely dry however we had a really big wet season so everywhere is flooded (As is most of North West Queensland, Australia). It's quite sad in some instances as a lot of the cattle farmers have lost their cattle and most of their infrastructure so it's going to be a long time to rebuild their businesses back up.
Cheers.
Nice shot! Glad to hear your happy with your purchase...happy shooting! Have to start getting into the whole HDR thing myself...
btaylor: As promised here is pretty much the first shot to come out of the 10-22mm....
As promised here is pretty much the first shot to come out of the 10-22mm....
Way sweet. As a point of personal preference, I would have leaned a bit away from the 'painting' character of the trees, though on second thought, it's kind of cool too, so maybe forget that comment .
Like I said, way sweet.
Colin: As a point of personal preference, I would have leaned a bit away from the 'painting' character of the trees
No "painting" as such on the trees there mate, just the way it came out with the HDR merging. It wasn't the most exciting photo as there were no nice dramatic clouds across the sky so I tried to make it a bit more interesting by having some of the foreground exposed as well.
I'm really happy with this lens so far. I haven't found the need to even use a circular polariser yet as the saturation of the blues in a flat sky during the day is really good. It's a great addition to my kit and I'd highly recommend it for 1.6x crop sensor users. Now to save for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS...
btaylor: No "painting" as such on the trees there mate, just the way it came out with the HDR merging. It wasn't the most exciting photo as there were no nice dramatic clouds across the sky so I tried to make it a bit more interesting by having some of the foreground exposed as well.
I didn't mean 'painting' as such. I mean, subjectively, the effect that seems to happen when the darker stuff gets pushed into the midtones with HDR software. It's an artistic choice, and I have nothing to compare it to, and even if I did, it's your choice, not mine. I got a similar effect, often, when I used Raw Shooter Essentials to render my raw images that had a lot of dynamic range, and I used the 'fill light' control extensively to bring up the darker content and then used the 'contrast' control to keep it punchy. I wasn't trying to be overly critical. I think it's a great shot regardless.
No offence taken whatsoever Colin, I actually really appreciate the comments We all do things differently. What looks great to me may not always be perfect anyway (I'm red/green colourblind so occasionally I miss a thing or two). I'm always happy to recieve a bit of constructive criticism - after all how are we to learn if we aren't aware of the things we could do differently to improve. There's an absolute wealth of experience and knowledge within these forums and it's a great place to learn.
Heya Ben.
The only one of your "possible" lenses I have experience with right now is the 10-22. I JUST got it for a weding on Saturday. This lens is amazing. It just gives you shots you never thought you could get.
If you want to do landscapes, you can't beat it. Talk about an impressive angle of view at 10mm. Also, architectual pictures are great. Definitely let's you get the picture you need.
A few things to keep in mind about the 10-22......wide angle lenses aren't just for "getting it all in", they are about the aspect of the picture. Things that are further away REALLY look further away. Angles and lines are dramatic, and can make a great effect. All of these are less dramatic the closer to 22 you get.
Also, you want to get as close as possible with this lens. You really have to be personal, and agressive with this lens. If you aren't close enough you get things you don't want in the picture, and you lose what this lens is made for.
As far as the lens being weather sealed, all of the moving parts are enclosed, but NOT sealed. The lens does move about a CM in and out, but it is always recessed behind the front of the lense, so if you put your filter on the front, it's very well protected. Also, you would want a THIN filter. It's going to cost you a lot for a good filter, but if you use a cheap one, you'll get more vignetting.
So, I don't know what to tell you about the other lenses, but there's some insight on this one. It's a GREAT lens. I'll post some pics if you'd like.
John
Here's another shot with the 10-22mm taken over the weekend. I'm loving the contrast of this lens. 40D, 10-22mm @ 10mm, ISO 100, f/9, 1/160sec. Photo is straight out of the camera.
btaylor: Here's another shot with the 10-22mm taken over the weekend. I'm loving the contrast of this lens. 40D, 10-22mm @ 10mm, ISO 100, f/9, 1/160sec. Photo is straight out of the camera.
You know, I was noticing the other day.....I saw some pictures that were recently hung at work, and they were nature shots, all taken with a wide angle lens. It was obvious because on the left, and right quarters of the picture, everything was skewed, and I'm talking, if the pic is 2 feet wide, it starts showing 6 inches from the middle. Trees were no longer standing straight up and there was an obvious curve to the whole scene. I thought to myself "I could take a better quality shot than this with my 10-22."
The 10-22mm just controls it's distortion SO well. This picture you took would be noticeably curved if they used the same lens.
I'm so happy with that lens!
Here's a picture taken with the 10-22. Unedited jpeg.
Well, I messed that up....I'll try again later.