16-35L or 10-22...advice needed because my sick head is playing games with me...

I have currently:


1) 70-200 L f/4 IS


2) 50mm f/1.4


3) 17-85 IS (which I am currently trying to sell as I am not using it at all)


I want to get a wide angle for my 40D and here is a problem...I would like to go to FF sometime soon-ish, perhaps in a year, most-- two, but if I sink my money into an L lense, I will probably have to wait a bit longer for FF. On other hand, I already have the L disease and I noticed it can be cured by a selected purchase, followed by a bit of a guilt, quickly forgotten when images from camera pop up on my computer. I blame it all on you guys as you recommended the fantastic 70-200 for me [;)] . F/4 is enough for me, happy with this arrangement, if I ever upgrade to 2.8, it may be 24-70.


So...if you were me, would you go for 10-22 or 16-35L and upgrade to FF later? Just curious...


Most of my pictures are frankly pretty timid, I am learning, pathetically slowly, but enjoying every moment of it. So I take pictures of my dogs (love taking these!), some human portraits, park or beach outings, street pictures...I would like to try some landscapes though...Not interested in bugs or birds much but I like nature shots.


Am I even considering the right lenses at this point? Or given what I wrote, would you go with a different lens altogether?


Any advice, as always, greatly appreciated...and if I will follow it, I can always blame my diminishing savings on you[;)]

When I was looking at a wide angle for my 50D, I found the Tokina 12-24 f/4 (first version) for $400. I think that would be a good option for you. The second version sells for $500, while the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 retails for $600 (although it's hard to find at retail price). I can't necessarily suggest that particular lens, though, as I had a major issue with the first copy I received (although it produced some great images when it focused correctly). I'll have to report back after I get the second copy (should get here soon).

Why are you not using the 17-85? If it's because of image quality issues, then I can understand, but otherwise, what would you gain by buying the 16-35/2.8L II?


Second, if you are planning on going to 35mm, then why are you contemplating buying an EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 lens for $700?


Honestly, I've never understood how some people don't know what lenses they want to get next. Every lens I've bought I knew exactly which one I needed. I go out and shoot, find out "hey I'm not long enough or wide enough" or I might think "I can't shoot shallower DOF" or "I can't focus close enough" or "I need sharper glass." I study how I take pictures. I look at my EXIF data and evaluate how the image turned out relative to how I wanted it to look. Given all this the decision becomes self-evident. This is why I am perplexed that you want to buy a lens in a focal length range that you already have, yet you do not use, and yet are unable to evaluate your needs. You practically have all the data in front of you. I didn't need a 200mm lens to play with to know I needed the 70-200/2.8L IS. But if you shoot with the 17-85 you should be able to extrapolate your experience with that lens to determine whether you should buy an EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 or an EF 16-35/2.8L, or a 24-70/2.8L. They are all very, very different lenses, though each is quite sharp and a good overall performer in its class. But for all you know, you may want a prime lens--after all, the 24/1.4L II is sharper than any of the above--but who knows? I can't tell you that, only doing your own shooting and evaluation can you make that decision.


It strikes me, then, that you want to buy the L glass just because you want the red ring...you are infatuated with getting the best possible quality but you're not quite sure how you'd use it. That's entirely human, and I'm really not trying to scold you. But do yourself a favor and do your homework before splashing out on expensive optics that you might not even use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

Why are you not using the 17-85? If it's because of image quality issues, then I can understand, but otherwise, what would you gain by buying the 16-35/2.8L II?








It strikes me, then, that you want to buy the L glass just because you want the red ring...you are infatuated with getting the best possible quality but you're not quite sure how you'd use it. That's entirely human, and I'm really not trying to scold you. But do yourself a favor and do your homework before splashing out on expensive optics that you might not even use.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

wickerprints


I do not use 17-85 because most of the time 50 mm or 70-200 sits on my camera and I find 50mm where I normally shoot or I need zoom 70-200 (I would say so far 60/40 split).


The reason why I want to go wider is because I want to try/learn something different, I tried 17 and up and find it a bit limiting, hence I thought of 10-22, however since I have this thing called mortgage, I would prefer to get a lens I could use when I get FF. Problem is, if I got 16-35 now, it would not give me anything better than I have now (1mm is not much) but it would give me IQ, and that definitely is a plus, who would not want an L lens? At least I do. Could care less if it comes with purple ring if IQ it produces is what I am after, becasue, believe me, I could use all help....Anyway, I borrowed 16-35 from a friend for a day and had a hard time giving it back.


No offense taken here, I know you are trying to give me a good advice and I am listening to anything anyone can say. I think this is what this forum is for. This is a great place and I am learning a lot, but I am a bit confused or undecided (as most women are when it comes to decisions), so sinking big $$$...I would like to hear from people like you, who can dish out perfect reasoning what to do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

When I was looking at a wide angle for my 50D, I found the Tokina 12-24 f/4 (first version) for $400. I think that would be a good option for you. The second version sells for $500, while the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 retails for $600 (although it's hard to find at retail price). I can't necessarily suggest that particular lens, though, as I had a major issue with the first copy I received (although it produced some great images when it focused correctly). I'll have to report back after I get the second copy (should get here soon).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Sean, would they work with FF or only with AF-S? I do not know about Tokina lenses at all.


Thanks for your help

10-22 is euquivalent to 16-35 in FF. If you REALLY need ultrawide angle, then gowith the 10-22. 16-35 is wide on a 1.6x camera, but it's not considered ultrawide (16 x 1.6 = 25.6)


If I were you I'd go with the 16-35 f/2.8L to usewithmy 40Dand wait a little longer to get a FF body. The reason I'd go this route is because when I have my FF, I've already had a wide angle lens to use with it. If I went with the 10-22 now, I would not have a lens to use with the FF when I have it in the future...and getting both the FF and a 16-35 at the same time willleave a big hole in my pocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen

If I were you I'd go with the 16-35 f/2.8L to usewithmy 40Dand wait a little longer to get a FF body. The reason I'd go this route is because when I have my FF, I've already had a wide angle lens to use with it. If I went with the 10-22 now, I would not have a lens to use with the FF when I have it in the future...and getting both the FF and a 16-35 at the same time willleave a big hole in my pocket.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

This is how I feel, it's just that I will need to wait for taking wide-er pictures longer, but it may be worth it. Anyway, I would probably take crappy ones in the beginning with such wide lens...they are more difficult suckers to navigate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BES

I do not use 17-85 because most of the time 50 mm or 70-200 sits on my camera and I find 50mm where I normally shoot or I need zoom 70-200 (I would say so far 60/40 split).


The reason why I want to go wider is because I want to try/learn something different, I tried 17 and up and find it a bit limiting, hence I thought of 10-22, however since I have this thing called mortgage, I would prefer to get a lens I could use when I get FF. Problem is, if I got 16-35 now, it would not give me anything better than I have now (1mm is not much) but it would give me IQ, and that definitely is a plus, who would not want an L lens? At least I do. Could care less if it comes with purple ring if IQ it produces is what I am after, becasue, believe me, I could use all help....Anyway, I borrowed 16-35 from a friend for a day and had a hard time giving it back.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

*shrug*


The way I see it, you're telling us two very different things here. On the one hand, you're saying you use the 50mm ad 70-200mm all the time, and on the other hand, you're saying you borrowed the 16-35 and had a hard time giving it back, yet the only thing that this lens gives you over the 17-85 which you already have is somewhat sharper image quality.


Granted I don't have the 17-85, but is it really that crappy of a lens??? [:S]


If you think you want to go even wider than 16-17mm then the 10-22 will be quite wide enough. Here's another possibility; buy the 10-22 and sell it when you upgrade your body. Sure, you won't get full price for it but lenses generally keep their value fairly well. The thing is, with the equipment you currently own, there is simply no other way to get the ultrawide angle at a reasonable price except to purchase an EF-S lens. You could get one for $700 and sell it later for maybe only $400-500. Sure, you lose a few hundred but what is the price you put on the ability to take pictures at those focal lengths for a year or so?


I say if you are truly undecided, you better spend a LOT more time playing with those lenses and those focal lengths. Force yourself not to use the 50 or the 70-200, go borrow or rent the 10-22 and 16-35 and really find out how much you like them.

You say f4.0 is enough for you. Go with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L and get to the FF sooner. Otherwise go with the 16-35.


Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

You say f4.0 is enough for you. Go with the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L and get to the FF sooner. Otherwise go with the 16-35.


Mark
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

FF is what I am aiming for in the near future, hence my indecision...I do like your thinking...Thanks

I have the Canon EF-S 10-22mm and I love it. Currently use it on a 50D. As it is such a strong lens I don't think you've have any trouble selling it for pretty close to what you paid (the thing I hate about good lenses, you can't buy used ones cheap enough to justify NOT buying new in my opinion) if you ever decide to upgrade to the full frame camera.


Also keep in mind there's a decent chance you'd keep your 40D even if you did upgrade, making the EF-S lens lineup still useful to you. I had an original Digi Rebel 300 and a brother that could really use it that saves me lots of money helping me out with house stuff (mostly electrical work) so it was handed down to him... but I will never get rid of the 50D even if I do upgrade to a FF camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

*shrug*


The way I see it, you're telling us two very different things here. On the one hand, you're saying you use the 50mm ad 70-200mm all the time, and on the other hand, you're saying you borrowed the 16-35 and had a hard time giving it back, yet the only thing that this lens gives you over the 17-85 which you already have is somewhat sharper image quality.


Granted I don't have the 17-85, but is it really that crappy of a lens??? [img]/emoticons/emotion-7.gif[/img]

---

No, that is NOT the point I am trying to make. My ultimate
goal and dream is FF and I do not want to end up with two lenses for
1.6 sensor when I can start building a system that will be optimized
for what I will end up with within a year. I agree with you
wholeheartedly that you cannot put the price on a "lost" opportunity
when you do not have the chance to take that right photo, but I always
read here the mantra "invest in lenses, invest in lenses...." so I am
trying to figure out what others in my position would do.


But I like your other piece of advice, renting, so I may just go the
other way...buy 16-35 and if before I get FF I REALLY feel I need
something wider, I will rent it. Good point, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BES

I would like to go to FF sometime soon-ish, perhaps in a year, most-- two

---

I commend you for planning ahead, that's very wise. In this case, I would advise you to get the 10-22. The 16-35 on your 40D just isn't "ultra" wide: it's only "wide". When you do upgrade to full frame, you'll lose 20% or so from selling the 10-22 (unless you keep a 1.6X camera as a 2nd body as many do), but in the mean time you'll have several years of true ultra wide photography, which is a whole different world.


Furthermore, the 16-35 costs $1,400, but the optical quality is no better than the $450 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8: you would be paying an extra grand for a feature that you can't even use for 1-2 years (full frame compatibility), plus some other bonus features such as the full time manual, weather sealing, manual focus features, etc. By the time you finally get a full frame camera, you may have decided that you prefer a *different* ultrawide lens for full frame, such as a new EF 12-24 f/2.8 (if Canon ever tries to make one to match Nikon's) or the much lighter 17-40 f/4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BES

I would like to go to FF sometime soon-ish, perhaps in a year, most-- two

---

I commend you for planning ahead, that's very wise. In this case, I would advise you to get the 10-22. The 16-35 on your 40D just isn't "ultra" wide: it's only "wide". When you do upgrade to full frame, you'll lose 20% or so from selling the 10-22 (unless you keep a 1.6X camera as a 2nd body as many do), but in the mean time you'll have several years of true ultra wide photography, which is a whole different world.


Furthermore, the 16-35 costs $1,400, but the optical quality is no better than the $450 Tamron 17-50 f/2.8: you would be paying an extra grand for a feature that you can't even use for 1-2 years (full frame compatibility), plus some other bonus features such as the full time manual, weather sealing, manual focus features, etc. By the time you finally get a full frame camera, you may have decided that you prefer a *different* ultrawide lens for full frame, such as a new EF 12-24 f/2.8 (if Canon ever tries to make one to match Nikon's) or the much lighter 17-40 f/4.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Daniel


Now that makes perfect sense...Thanks so much, you are the best!....Oh boy....choices. I guess the other reason I am so picky is the lack of IS in both, I wish now all lenses had it, so maybe it would make sense to go with what I need now and see if in a year they will cook up one with IS...is it possible? I do not have much experience with Canon line at all....I am kind of getting addicted to that IS thing, darn it.


Thanks again, as always I get such wonderful advice here and learn soooo much [:)]

If your ultimate dream is a 35mm sensor, then why are you going to drop more than half the cost of a new body on a single lens when you barely shoot that focal length range as it is? And then in the same post you say that you need to invest in lenses. You keep sending us conflicting messages.


You could get a 5DmkII for $2700. If you bought a $1400 EF 16-35/2.8L, you could have spent that money on half of the 5D body, and as Daniel rightly points out, on an APS-C sensor, you're basically paying a lot of extra cash for an image circle you're not fully utilizing, and you *won't* utilize until you get a 35mm sensor.


Honestly, if I were in your position, I'd hold off on buying anything new. Save it up and keep shooting and USE what you already have. If I didn't have the money to spend, I wouldn't be dropping $$$$ on L glass. And if you're dead set on getting the best possible image quality, then stop looking at zooms. I'd buy some cheap EF primes that would still have decent resale value and are impeccably sharp, which will give you all the more reason to develop your technique.


Here's the thing. Investing in lenses is nearly always a better idea than investing in bodies. Bodies don't have a 10-15 year serviceable lifespan the way lenses so often do. The very popular 70-200/2.8L IS is a 9 year-old design and it is still selling like hotcakes. Its value has actually *increased* over time. Granted, not all lenses do this, and when Canon does update the design, the old model takes a hit. But it is unheard of for an EF lens to lose value in the way that a digital body does.


But all of that is irrelevant if you don't think in terms of "what are my photographic needs and what equipment should I have in order to satisfy those needs?" I could go out tomorrow and drop $7000 on a 400/2.8L IS. I have the means. It's a very, very nice lens and I guarantee you walking around with something like that would make a lot of heads turn. But what on Earth am I going to do with something like that? I'd feel nervous just touching it much less walk out the door with it. And I'm not a professional sports photographer, so it's a huge waste of money and a huge increase in risk. It might actually be an interesting financial investment--who knows, the lens might appreciate in value--but if I really wanted to think that way I'd be better off trading in securities instead of optical fluorite.


So do you see where I'm going with this? In my view, you have not yet demonstrated your ability to separate your desires from your needs. As such, it is unwise to approach the subject without first examining how each of your proposed purchases will bring you to the next level in your personal photographic development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

I could go out tomorrow and drop $7000 on a 400/2.8L IS. I have the means.

---

I'm sorry but...I think I hate you. [:P]


I'm gonna go cry now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BES

...advice needed because my sick head is playing games with me...

---

Yeah... tell me about it [8-)]


My $.02 would bedon't buy anything yet, sleep on it, wait a week or two. Thats what I usually do. If your ultimate goal is FF, you have a tough decision to make, bacause what is anultra wide angle lens onFF is notthat on APS-C, plus, APS-C lenses don't fit on FF.Maybe hold off on any nearest purchases,save upand buy a FF and 17-40 4.0 L? I did that, and yes -it sucked, but I would do it again...


Anyway, whathever the decision is - good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wickerprints

If your ultimate dream is a 35mm sensor, then why are you going to drop more than half the cost of a new body on a single lens when you barely shoot that focal length range as it is? And then in the same post you say that you need to invest in lenses. You keep sending us conflicting messages.


You could get a 5DmkII for $2700. If you bought a $1400 EF 16-35/2.8L, you could have spent that money on half of the 5D body, and as Daniel rightly points out, on an APS-C sensor, you're basically paying a lot of extra cash for an image circle you're not fully utilizing, and you *won't* utilize until you get a 35mm sensor.


Honestly, if I were in your position, I'd hold off on buying anything new. Save it up and keep shooting and USE what you already have. If I didn't have the money to spend, I wouldn't be dropping $$ on L glass. And if you're dead set on getting the best possible image quality, then stop looking at zooms. I'd buy some cheap EF primes that would still have decent resale value and are impeccably sharp, which will give you all the more reason to develop your technique.


Here's the thing. Investing in lenses is nearly always a better idea than investing in bodies. Bodies don't have a 10-15 year serviceable lifespan the way lenses so often do. The very popular 70-200/2.8L IS is a 9 year-old design and it is still selling like hotcakes. Its value has actually *increased* over time. Granted, not all lenses do this, and when Canon does update the design, the old model takes a hit. But it is unheard of for an EF lens to lose value in the way that a digital body does.


But all of that is irrelevant if you don't think in terms of "what are my photographic needs and what equipment should I have in order to satisfy those needs?" I could go out tomorrow and drop $7000 on a 400/2.8L IS. I have the means. It's a very, very nice lens and I guarantee you walking around with something like that would make a lot of heads turn. But what on Earth am I going to do with something like that? I'd feel nervous just touching it much less walk out the door with it. And I'm not a professional sports photographer, so it's a huge waste of money and a huge increase in risk. It might actually be an interesting financial investment--who knows, the lens might appreciate in value--but if I really wanted to think that way I'd be better off trading in securities instead of optical fluorite.


So do you see where I'm going with this? In my view, you have not yet demonstrated your ability to separate your desires from your needs. As such, it is unwise to approach the subject without first examining how each of your proposed purchases will bring you to the next level in your personal photographic development.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Look, I do not mean to sound impolite, but I am starting to get impression you are considering me an imbecile. I have clearly explained what my long-term goals are, most who read my posts got it....All I asked was (very politely, mind you), a bit of advice from people with more experience than I.


No, I am not lusting for any showy reason after an L lens but for a very simple one: I tested the sucker I am entertaining to buy and I just needed some good folks' input of what would they do in my situation. L lens is nice, no doubt about it. What is wrong with admitting it? I got great images with it. I am not an experienced photographer, but I do not personally believe in spending money twice, that is just me, you are entitled to your own opinion.


Daniel and others gave me some great advice, so did you...buying or even renting 10-22 for the times I need it ( since so far I just started to feel the need for something wider ) is a great idea. That kind of testing may fully convince me if I want to invest into it or let it go and wait for FF and perhaps bite the bullet and speed up that process. Thanks, that was nice.


Oh, and I am not interested in turning heads with my lens, that must be a guy thing, I prefer employing old fashioned ways.

Agreed with the above, I posted my Body vs Lens thread and I've made up my mind to grab a 70-200, maybe upgrade to the 50mm 1.4 and then eventually pickup another walk around Lens.



Selling my EF-S 17-85 and putting that towards the 70-200! Making the commitment on glass, then thinking about a 5DII for next year's purchase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hotsecretary

Agreed with the above, I posted my Body vs Lens thread and I've made up my mind to grab a 70-200, maybe upgrade to the 50mm 1.4 and then eventually pickup another walk around Lens.



Selling my EF-S 17-85 and putting that towards the 70-200! Making the commitment on glass, then thinking about a 5DII for next year's purchase.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I love my 50mm 1.4. it practically lives on my camera, but that is just me. I am very interested in trying landscapes, more wide angle shots of street photos so I am tinking of something wider. Hence my thread.


Thanks for your input [:)], i see i am not alone torturing myself...

Here are the two scenarios I can suggest


first, get the 10-22 for your 40d to see how wide a wide angle lens can go. Then when the time comes that you'll be getting your FF body and decided to let go of your 40d, sell the 10-22 then get the 16-35L


or you can go straight to the 16-35L but mind you, the 16-35L on a crop body isn't really that wide. the good thing is you already have your lens. A friend of mine invested on lenses first. her first camera was a 350d and now that she's done setting up her lens lineup that she now upgraded to the 5DMKII. 16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 f4 ISU (it would have been better if she went for the trinity lens but she said she can't take the weight of the 70-200 2.8 ISU)





for me I'd go with the first option. at least while waiting for the time I can get my FF body, I would be able to test if having a UWA lens is good for me and my photographic needs. so that by the time you go FF, you're already decided if you want an UWA or go for the 24-70 2.8L because 24 is already wide for FF.

You know, I'm siding with getting an 'L' 16-35 f/2(or 17-40 f/4, after all, f/4 is fine for your telephoto, right?) at the same time you get your full frame. You'll have a bit of improvement in image quality over the 17-85, but you're not going to get much more functionality. It'll mostly be heavier and have nicer build. But, it's not really going to change what kind of pictures you can get. You'll just be able to print larger.


If you want wide angle right now, go with a temporary EF-S type lens, and consider the loss on resale as an extended rental.


I say this having done what you're thinking. I bought the 16-35mm (original)to go wider on my Rebel XT. I enjoyed it, but I was also using it to supplement my 28-135, so I actually got something more out of it. However, if I was going to go this route again, I would have bought the FF camera sooner and gone with the 17-40 to save the money, and probably bought the 24-105 only after I got the FF camera to take advantage of it, and kept the 28-135 in use a bit longer...


I don't think wickerprints was trying to be rude, but while I certainly understand your motivation, I think he has a point in terms of desire. The 'L' in less than telephoto scenarios provides far less benefit when you're not in the realm of full frame, because you're paying for a lot of what you can't use. At that point, you're parting with money more to have something than to actually use it.


Once you've got the FF, the 16-35 might be worth it, but until then,most of the expense is a down payment on where you want to be.


Anyway, just an opinion.

I'm going to say go with something that will give you ultra-wide on the 1.6 crop for now. I couldn't offer anything as to which one though, I've never owned any of them.


But when you go FF definitely get the 16-35 II. I love this lens. I have used the 17-40 and I feel okay with $700 difference (I feel the 16-35 is reasonably priced and the 17-40 is just a great bargain). I didn't care for the feel of the 17-40, I actually like a heavier lens. The 16-35 just balances out well on the 5D II. I really find the 2.8 to be a necessity, even in decent light 4 doesn't blur the background enough on wides. I like to shoot scenic portraits at 35mm and f4 just does have the bite 2.8 does.


If all you were going to do was shoot landscape orarchitectural stuff I'd say 17-40 is fine but if you like people in the shot I'd highly recommend the 16-35.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

You know, I'm siding with getting an 'L' 16-35 f/2(or 17-40 f/4, after all, f/4 is fine for your telephoto, right?) at the same time you get your full frame.


..........


Once you've got the FF, the 16-35 might be worth it, but until then,most of the expense is a down payment on where you want to be.


Anyway, just an opinion.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Colin, thanks very much for your advice and opinion. I take all of them (postings from all posters) under consideration, weather I like them or not, at a given moment. I am not in a mad rush to part with my money so I can wait and decide what is best after a few rentals. I am fortunate to have friend with 16-35 who does not mind lending me his glass and I know already what I can do with it. What I do not know is, what I can do with 10-22, hence I decided to rent it. If I like it more, then I will buy it and use for as long as I can, I like all of your guys thinking. But if it is just not that much of a deal breaker for me after testing, I will go out and get the coveted FF and then just wait a bit and 16-35 or the other way round, not sure yet. And you are right, it is a hefty lens, but I am getting used to this and now when my 50mm is on camera it almost feels too light. I have to hit gym seriously before I can keep up with this hobby.


Thanks for your help, I always value it and appreciate your time to provide me with much needed advice.

BES - Don't count out the Tokinas wide-angle lenses just yet. They cannot be used on a full-frame camera, but they're cheaper than the 10-22, have a constant aperture, and they are very well made (from what I can tell from the reviews). However, I must withhold final judgment until I get my second copy in. With my first copy I was really impressed with the images in which the center focus point was used. I should get my second copy tomorrow and then I'll be able to tell if not being able to use the outside focus points is a consistent problem. If it focuses as it should, it'll be one of my favorite lenses to use (largely because of the "fun" factor coupled with sharp image quality).


See if you can rent a Tokina or two. If the 12-24 f/4 would be wide enough for you (and fast enough), then it'd be a good lens to consider. If you don't need as much focal range, but need a wider aperture, then the 11-16 f/2.8 might be the way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

BES - Don't count out the Tokinas wide-angle lenses just yet. They cannot be used on a full-frame camera, but they're cheaper than the 10-22, have a constant aperture, and they are very well made (from what I can tell from the reviews). However, I must withhold final judgment until I get my second copy in. With my first copy I was really impressed with the images in which the center focus point was used. I should get my second copy tomorrow and then I'll be able to tell if not being able to use the outside focus points is a consistent problem. If it focuses as it should, it'll be one of my favorite lenses to use (largely because of the "fun" factor coupled with sharp image quality).


See if you can rent a Tokina or two. If the 12-24 f/4 would be wide enough for you (and fast enough), then it'd be a good lens to consider. If you don't need as much focal range, but need a wider aperture, then the 11-16 f/2.8 might be the way to go.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Sean, I was thinking about it when i read your first post...I like the "transition" phase use of this lens at lower price. If it is producing IQ that is up to par than this may be another option. I am really not willing to compromise quality, I'd rather wait. I am not in a hurry, so I would be interested in your review when you get your lens. Thanks a bunch! I will also try renting it and compare with 10-22 from Canon. I do not need to go necessary to 10, I worry I would be taking pictures of my feet [:$]. But my top priority is to upgrade to FF.


Sean, thanks again for taking your time to give me your advice, as always I appreciate it immensely.

Here's my experience if it helps. My first DSLR was the original Digital Rebel with the 18-55. Loved the body but found out about the shortcomings of the kit lense really fast on critical shots. I looked around for a better replacement and what I ended up with was the 17-40 mm F4L. It has a smaller range than the kit lense but I got it partly because of that red ring and also the rave reviews I read about it here, at Fred Miranda, and photozone. It wasn't a cheap lense but what an improvement!


On a crop body like the 40D, I found it was a great walkaround lens, good for landscapes and short portraiture. Image quality, sharpness, and colors were excellent. I also used it for night shots and even without IS, I was getting great keepers shooting at ISO 400-800, F4, and hand held shooting down to about 1/6 sec. A lot of my friends and co-workers were amazed at some of those night/twilight shots.


Since then, I went full frame but my present interest is toward the long end so the 17-40 doesn't get used much. However, when I'm in a tight place, I pull it out put it on the full frame body and you'd be amazed in how much landscape it can suck in. The F4 aperature isn't all that bad anymore because you can always increase the ISO for full frame cameras and not have much of an image quality loss. On a 5D Mk II, you can jack up the ISO and not miss the IS at all. Just shoot wide if you can.


As you can see, I was/am quite pleased with my choice of the 17-40. It was great for a cropped body and I still use it with the FF body. My question to you is what don't you like about the 17-85? I've never used it before but I've read reviews that its okay but not noted for for high image quality. Do you dislike it for that or do you not like the zoom range? If you don't like the range of the 17-85, you're going to like the range of the 17-40 less, and you will lose the IS. If you want the image quality, the 17-40 delivers and you will have an upgrade path when you go FF.


In my case, I went for image quality (and got it) and even though it has no IS, it didn't affect me during my crop days or present FF days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EdN

My question to you is what don't you like about the 17-85? I've never used it before but I've read reviews that its okay but not noted for for high image quality. Do you dislike it for that or do you not like the zoom range? If you don't like the range of the 17-85, you're going to like the range of the 17-40 less, and you will lose the IS. If you want the image quality, the 17-40 delivers and you will have an upgrade path when you go FF.


In my case, I went for image quality (and got it) and even though it has no IS, it didn't affect me during my crop days or present FF days.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Ed, thanks for your advice, I will certainly consider it. I have never tried 17-40, never had it on my camera so I would have to see...


I do not dislike 17-85, it's a great lens, but in my current line up I seem to use 50mm quite a bit and then switch to my 70-200. Both have excellent IQ. I actually do not have THAT much need for super wide, but I would like to learn as I would like to try my hand with certain type of photos for which these lenses come handy. My friend has 16-35 and I borrowed it from him, I used both 17-85 and 16-35 and what can I say, I can see a bit of a difference in IQ, especially in some more challenging conditions. What I forgot to add, I had it mounted on his FF camera and on my 40D so I can see what difference it makes. But the most important thing is....I am planning on switching to FF. I am not a snob, although it is nice to have an L lens that offers an excellent IQ, if not for desire to switch to FF, I would acquire 10-22 tomorrow. I am not in a rush, I feel I can wait a bit, so I am taking all these great advices in and doing research and I am going to rent 10-22 to see how I like it.


Thanks again Ed, I much appreciate taking your time to respond to my question [:)]

If you're not that in a hurry and if you want to try out taking shots with a UWA lens of your own then go for the 10-22. It's almost the same with the 16-35L on FF in terms of focal range. IQ is really admirable too.


But if you're saying you can borrow a 10-22 or a 16-35 with a FF body, then it's better if you continue borrowing for a while so that you can save up for a FF body that you wanted. The only hassle for you would be asking permission from your friends :P Or rent.


Just as I have said, all of this is just for you to know if you want a UWA lens in you're line-up or not. It's better this way than shell-out your money on something you're not sure of. If you're rich then I think it wouldn't be a problem then. hehehe

I had the same dilema year or so ago, i had a 400d and wanted to go wide. I also had a 24-105l as my standard zoom.


I saved and bought a second hand 5dmark2 and was amazed at the difference of full frame made to my 24-105l. But to be fair i probably would buy a mark one with the benefit of hindsite and put the rest of the cash into more 2.8 or better glass.


Last week i purchased the 16-35 mk2 and to be honest i am finding it hard to use, its almost too wide. The struggle is composition and how to reframe to keep things out of the frame and just how close you need to get to objects.


I have only read one good article on getting the best from super wides and am looking for more. I would love to here suggestion. Also 16-35 your going to need bigger filters (its all money).


To be fair from what you have said about your current lens selection you useing a 50mm at 80 mm and a zoom at 112-320mm so more then likely you should go for a 17-40 f4 as you state your not used f2.8 and then pick up a 5d mark then you can have your cake and eat it.


Anyway just my 2 pennys worth.

I'd sell the crop...buy a 5D Mark II with a 24-105 mm f4 L IS USM which gives you a decent wide angle with enough reach as a walk around lens. That combined with your 70-200 f4 will cover you in 99% of the situations. Whatever you end up doing...have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richscorer

Last week i purchased the 16-35 mk2 and to be honest i am finding it hard to use, its almost too wide. The struggle is composition and how to reframe to keep things out of the frame and just how close you need to get to objects.

---

Since going FF, I use the 16-35 a lot less, OTOH, when you go with the ability to go that wide, it allows for a lot of interesting possibilities, particularly in using the enhanced perspective to contrast foreground with background. I like going really wide and getting a whole lot of near ground combined with a whole lot of sky, ora far horizon and comparatively huge clouds (which tend to be right above me, but get pushed out front due to the perspective shift.


Shooting your toes can be fun too [:)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius

I'd sell the crop...buy a 5D Mark II with a 24-105 mm f4 L IS USM which gives you a decent wide angle with enough reach as a walk around lens. That combined with your 70-200 f4 will cover you in 99% of the situations. Whatever you end up doing...have fun.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

This is good advice. You may want to keep the 40D body for now but forget the 16-35 F/2.8 L. Instead, depending on your finances, get the 5D Mk II body or the 5D Mk II kit with the 24-105 F/4 L IS.


If you can afford the body only, you still have the 50 F/1.4 and 200 F/4 L IS to use with the new body.


If you buy the kit, you can try out the 24 mm focal length of the lens and see if it's wide enough for your needs. If 24 mm isn't wide enough, you can put the 16-35 or 17-40 mm on your shopping list.


I've got the 24-105 F4 L IS and it's wide enough for most of my needs and it's a great lens to boot too.

Today I wantedwider than 24mm on my 5D, but I left my 16-35 at home... [:(]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Bes,<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I read that your main objective for your wide-angle is Landscape photo so I share my criteria for choosing between the 17-40L and 16-35L.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I have a FF camera, and I have a Sigma 17-35 f2.8 -3.5, that has problems so I am considering to change it. My dilemma is between the 17-40 f 4L and 16-35 f 2.8.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]The major dilemma is that it is nice to have a f2.8 lens, but like you I use the wide angle primarily for Landscapes, in this case you close down to f.8 &ndash; f.11 and more most of the time to have the right depth of field. So you lose the large part of the advantage of the 16-35. <o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]17-40is lighter, al lot cheaper, and have a 77 diameter common to all my other Canon Llenses, so I do not need to buy and carry another set of Circular Polarizer and Neutral density, that I use often shooting landscapes.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]I do not like to take a lens that is considered worse than another, so I still have the dilemma, but I think that some of the cons of 16-35 like filters and little use of f2.8 in landescapes will convince me for the 17-40.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Last think IS is not important in a wide angle lenses, so I do not think Canon will put IS in any lens between 14 <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]to 40 mm, do not wait for it.<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Gian Luca<o:p></o:p>

Finally I decided,


I was really upset to have to carry filters for 1 lens, and I did not want to compromize with image quality, so I bought the 14 f2.8 L MKII.


Ciao

Sounds like fun.


Enjoy!

I think your quandry is whether (and when) you want to switch to full frame. Per the other responders, I'm a little puzzed by your shunning your 17-85. It's seems a bit of a smoke screen you're foisting on yourself. It's a "decent" lens, with good range on crop factor. Main downside imho is it's way too slow for low available light shots. FWIW, your 50mm f1.4 will really shine in the lowlight department, on full frame. Hmm...:


With what you have now, I'd pick up a 10-22 and give it a try. If you do go to full frame (and don't retain your crop body) it should be fairly easy to resell the 10-22 without much loss.


If the full frame switch is imminent, I'd also consider the 17-40. It also makes a nice walk-around lens on crop bodies I would speculate, though I've not used that combo myself.