Reality check please

[btaylor]

Evening all,


I've just sold a couple of guitar amplifiers so I'm going to spend the cash on a new lens... and I can't decide.


To give you a bit of a background on my situation I live in outback Australia, so the conditions can be rather harsh and dusty. As I've found with my 28-135mm f/3.5 -5.6 IS USM whichhas gathered some dust on the inner lens element (otherwise I've been quite happy with this lens). I love to shoot dramatic landscapes but I also enjoy shooting rodeos, rugby union and general walkaround type stuff. I think I'm close to reaching the limit of my current gear so an upgrade is in order.


At the moment my kit includes a 40D, 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, 50mm f/1.8,kenko extension tubes for macro stuff (I highly rate them by the way), 430 EXII flash etc etc.


So at the moment in my list of possibles and probables are:


EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM (clearly for the landscape side of things)


24-70mm f/2.8 L USM


24-105mm f/4 L IS USM


70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM


I really appreciate having IS on the 28-135 but it's not a must. If I got the 10-22 I guess I'd use it mostly for landscape work and use the 28-135mm I already have for the rest. However, I've always wanted a 70-200 fast lens so I'm rather torn.


Any thoughts? Thanks in advance. Ben.

[Dallasphotog]

I own the EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM and the EF70-200mm F/2.8L IS USM you mentioned. They are both really fantastic lenses. If I was picking for you, I'd get the 70-200. The image stabilization makes me a better photographer and you are going to love the results at Rugby and Rodeo shoots.

[Keith B]

This is tough. If you really love shooting landscapes I say go with the 10-22.


My main walk around lens on my 5D II is the 16-35 II, which is the range you'd have with 10-22 on the 1.6 crop. It is on my camera 80%.


I have 70-200 2.8 IS, which I love and would never part with, It gets the 2nd most usage. So I'd suggest go with 10-22 now, put the left over cash in the bank and start saving to get the 70-200 next.

[Bill M.]

It all depends on what is more important to you and what you shoot most. If you really shoot a lot of landscapes then the 10-22 will open up a whole new world for you compared to the 28-135. As a general walk-around lens, the 24-70 or the 24-105 would be good choices. I started with a 17-40 for my 20D a few years back and then moved to the 24-105 and liked the extra tele range I had with it. Now that I primarily shoot with a 5DII, I keep the 24-105 on most of the time.


The 70-200 2.8 IS is certainly a great lens to have and if you do shoot a lot of action in low light, then its almost a necessity, but again, it all depends on your priorities right now and what you want to improve on immediately.


Good luck!

[Seth Tower]

The 10-22 was my favorite (zoom) lens on a 1.6x camera. It's truely revolutionary how W I D E 10mm is. I highly recommend it.

[alexniedra]

The image stabilization makes me a better photographer



Hmm....

[Benjamin]

Generally agreed with Keith.


I have the 16-35 II on my 1V-HS all time and it get's lots of use. I can imagine the 10-22 on a 40D to serve just the same except for being slightly slower. Put the 70-200/2.8 IS on the second place of your wish list makes sense, since you have had a wide angle, the 70-200 will take care all your sport and portrait works. Dont worry about a normal zoom once you got your wide angle and tele range covered, through in a 50/1.4 or 35/1.4 depends on your need will just work fine.


I have a 24-70L, I will choose the 24-70 over 24-105 since the 24-70L is an optically superior lens. IS does not play a great role in this focal length, certainly not as much as the IS in 70-200. But now i could sell my 24-70 and buy a 50/1.4 if i wish to free some cash while not making any sacrifice.

[Bill M.]

Just curious Benjamin, why do you say that the 24-70 is an optically superior lens? Did you ever have the 24-105?. I have rented the 24-70 on three occasionsand did so because it is a 2.8 but comparing the results between my 24-105 and the 24-70, I didn't find the images "superior". Maybe I am just lucky to have a sharp copy...or maybe the rented copies were a little off...


You are correct in that the IS is more important in the 70-200 range but I have found the IS has saved me on more than one occasion on the 24-105. Just my .02 that's all.

[Benjamin]

<span style="font-size: medium;"]Bill,


<span style="font-size: medium;"]I actually had the 24-105L before I exchanged for the 24-70L.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]By optically superior, the f2.8 is indeed a great deal for me. I shoot portrait and indoors; my experience shows that to go from f4 to f2.8 some time is the difference between "give-a-go" and "give-up", or between "nice blur" and "distracting background". Other than the aperture, the 24-70 has far less distortion at 24mm compared to the 24-105 - that sometime shows up on my landscape shots. The 24-70 @ f4 seems to perform a little bit better than the 24-105 wide open at comparable focal lengths (especially for contrast and vignette).


<span style="font-size: medium;"]Sharpness is something that I personally don't worry too much about as long as I'M USING A "L" LENS (which is an insurance for overall optical performance). I observe every parameter of my lenses from my real life shots not from just reading the ISO12233 results - because i believe what makes a lens a better performer is what it can deliver in real life. Don't get me wrong though, the ISO12233 charts that Bryan has been putting great effort in doing give me, in fact, everybody out here a great idea about which lens is sharp and which one is not so sharp. On the other hand, people looking at the charts and conclude (I always hear) that the 24-105 is sharper than the 24-70, the 70-200/4L IS is sharper than the non-IS 70-200/4L, etc... In practice, those difference in sharpness is something that's extremely hard for me to find and justify. It's not even because I don't pay enough attention on finding the difference in sharpness from my photos, it's just the matter that those difference in sharpness can be well ignored and you certainly will by no means get less sharp images if you choose one lens to the other. Choosing a 24-105 over the 24-70 because of the concern regarding sharpness does not make any sense to me, neither choosing the 70-200/4L IS over the non-IS model.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]I LOVE the IS on every lens that has it. It helps a lot when I handhold it to shoot. However, it's does nothing to stop your object from moving as you know. To me, to be able to shoot with a faster shutter speed in low light is more important, and I do need the extra stop background blur.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]I think it's personal to choose between the 24-70L and the 24-105L. Both are great lenses, depends on what you use them for. But in terms of optical performance, the 24-70 is the overall winner.


<span style="font-size: medium;"]Just my BS, no offence[:)]


<span style="font-size: medium;"]Benjamin

[Dallasphotog]

The image stabilization makes me a better photographer



Hmm....
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



I'm a big fan of Av shooting and I don't always watch the shutter speed that carefully. Without IS, 1/30 and slower begins to look a little blurry. When IS is running, I can pretty much shoot away. Not to mention what you can get away with in a dark wedding.

[btaylor]

Thanks guys I was leaning toward the 10-22mm so that might have put it in the bag for me. The 70-200mm 2.8 IS will be top of the list next purchase though I think. Might have to wait until March next year when my next bonus comes through(provided the mining industry kicks back into gear) as I am trying to spend "excess" cash and not savings on this wonderful little hobby.


Thanks again for the advice, I shall order the 10-22mm directly. (Found one for AUD$935 which is at least $100 cheaper than anywhere else)

[Victor Pelino]

My walk around lens is my 24-105. Its the best lens for general/all purpose stuff and if you're choosing middle ground between the two things you like to do this is the lens. However, I have to say, you probably shouldn't settle for the middle ground if you're looking for a lens for these specific reasons. With that in mind I would probably cut the 24-70 out too. (FOR NOW! Its a great lens) So really that leaves you with the 10-22 and the 70-200. The 70-200 2.8 is probably my favorite zoom lens. I use if for everything. I live in rugged West Virginia in the U.S. and I've also traveled to every kind of environment our National Park system has to offer. (Swamps, Deserts, Mountains, Oceanic) and my 70-200 has taken a licking and keeps on clicking. So far she's had no dust or mechanical breakdowns. Plus you get a 2.8. thru out the focal length range. Add an extender and you've got a nifty extra macro on your side. I guess if I had my choice between an "L" series and any other lens I'm going to side with the "L" most every time. And for the last reason, the "s" series are nice but if you ever decided to upgrade you're going to want to sell it off. If dust is a problem where you live it's going to cut your resell value. Of course, no matter what you decide they're Canon. So you'll be happy with whatever you decide. Good luck.

[btaylor]

Well I just went down to my local shop and purchased the 10-22mm. (Quick I know!) I've only played around with it about the house but I'm stoked with the amount you can capture in the frame! I'll get a nice sunset shot out at Lake Moondarra out of town tonight and post it up for you all.


Cheers!

[Bill M.]

Btaylor: Wow, you do act fast! Congrats on your new lens! I think you'll love the new perspective it gives you...looking forward to some pics from it...


Benjamin: No offense taken...You are right in that there are other qualities to lenses that would make them superior to one another besides just sharpness. A very extreme example would be with the50 1.8and the50 1.2. There are plenty of people I'm sure who may think the 50 1.8 might be as sharp as the 1.2 but then you would have to take into account the extra stops, contrast, bokeh, construction, etc... that you would be getting with the 1.2 (again, extreme example similar to the price difference between those two lenses!) that would make it the superior lens.


For me choosing the 24-105 versus the 24-70 wasn't just about sharpness, I was willing to sacrifice the extra stop for the extra 35mm and the IS.I have found that the 24-70 does perform slightly better at 24mm than the 24-105, there is certainly more vignetting, but I can easily PP that out. In the end, it is a personal preference for one over the other, and what you need out of the lens. Like you said, they are both great lenses.


BTW, I had the 70-200 f4 before getting the 70-200 f4 IS, and don't think the lens is any sharper than the latter, both are very sharp. With that said--I'm thinking about getting the 2.8 IS anyway![;)]

[Benjamin]

With that said--I'm thinking about getting the 2.8 IS anyway!/emoticons/emotion-5.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Another interesting story of me is that I actually bought the 70-200/2.8L IS before taking it back to exchange for my current 70-200/4L IS. The f2.8 is a GREAT lens to me; the only problem (sadly) i found personally is that i feel hard to carry it around all day. I cannot even hold it for too long without several short breaks in the middle. I know this has something to do with my 1V-HS - it by no means is a light camera, add the f2.8 lens the weight is reaching my limit for comfort/easy handholdability and carry around convenience (size is another issue). I tried the f2.8 on my old Rebel XTi, the overall weight works out fine - because the XTi merely weighs a pound, and the 1V-HS fully loaded with battery and film weighs nearly 3 pounds - that feels so different in a real hand.


I always recommend the 24-105L to people who's looking for a walk around lens with satisfactory IQ. In that regard there isn't a better option that I can think of. I think people who got the 24-70L are paying for what they have to have, like the f2.8. Bryan said in his review that the 24-105L will be the one if he could only have one lens - I agree and I'll do the same if that's the case[:)]


BTW, since you have the 70-200/4L IS, would you please to check if you can hear a rather big click sound when you shake the lens by hand. Because now I can hear a noisy click sound inside my lens when I'm shaking it. I know it's common to have a click sound in every lens, but just not sure if mine is the correct sound it should be making. The lens functions perfectly fine and I don't recall any abuse from my part, so i'm not too worried.


Thanks a lot!


Ben

[Bill M.]

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

[Benjamin]

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[:D]). My lens may sound louder than others, but as long as the lens works fine, I won't take any action.


Benjamin

[btaylor]

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


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/3603248758_5F00_b450e71983_5F00_b.jpg

[ShutterbugJohan]

I like the picture, Ben! The HDR is cool. :-) Is this near your home?

[btaylor]

I like the picture, Ben! The HDR is cool. :-) Is this near your home?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



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.

[Bill M.]

Nice shot! Glad to hear your happy with your purchase...happy shooting! Have to start getting into the whole HDR thing myself...

[Colin]

As promised here is pretty much the first shot to come out of the 10-22mm....
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



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.

[btaylor]

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 treesthere 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...

[Colin]

No "painting" as such on the treesthere 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.

[btaylor]

No offence taken whatsoever Colin, I actually really appreciate the comments[:D] 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.

[LoneSierra]

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 thingsto 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

[btaylor]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/3624750722_5F00_b4cf69915f_5F00_b.jpg


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.

[LoneSierra]

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!

[LoneSierra]

Here's a picture taken with the 10-22. Unedited jpeg.





Well, I messed that up....I'll try again later.