Hey everyone,
I got a Canon EOS Rebel t2i a while back and I
Printable View
Hey everyone,
I got a Canon EOS Rebel t2i a while back and I
The 17-40 is weather sealed, much better built, and significantly more versatile. I used to own it but sold it in favor of an f2.8 lens. But if landscapes are truly your interest, and you
Hello, and welcome to the TDP Forums!
I'd recommend the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 over the EF 17-40mm f/4L for you, for a few reasons. First, 17mm on a 1.6x crop body like the T2i is wide, but not ultrawide - many times, you need the ultrawide angle of view for landscape shots. Second, the 10-22mm has substantially less barrel distortion at the wide end than the 17-40mm (even though it's wider anddespite the fact that the 17-40mm benefits from the 'sweet spot' effect of using an EF lens on a crop body). Third, the weather sealing on the 17-40mm is not very useful unless the lens is mounted on a weather-sealed body, which the T21 is not.
I had and really liked the 10-22mm, both on the T1i that I started with and the 7D that I upgraded to fairly quickly. I only sold that lens after adding a 5DII to my kit - and getting the FF-eqiuvalent focal length lens, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, for my landscape shots. Even if you decide to go FF eventually, the 10-22mm should hold its value well - after using mine for nearly a year, I sold it for only $50 less than I paid for it (bought during a rebate - like right now - and sold when there wasn't a rebate available).
Good luck with your decision!
--John
If you don
Thanks everyone for your input! I
<div>
</div>Quote:
Originally Posted by wickerprints
About 27mm full frame equivalent, actually. 3mm at that angle of view amounts to a significant difference...
Quote:
Originally Posted by marisap
No, the 10-22mm is definitely not a general purpose zoom lens to replace your kit lens. A general purpose zoom spans wide angle to short telephoto. For that, consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lenses. The former is faster, works better in low light, and is better for portraits, the latter has a wider zoom range but is slower (not as good if you shoot moving subjects in poor light). The 10-22mm is an ultrawide zoom (16-35mm FF-equivalent, doesn't even cover the 'normal' focal lengths around 50mm FF-equivalent). The 10-22mm is a great landscape lens, in the sense that ultrawide lenses are often used to shoot landscapes. But for many people, that sort of lens would be the second or third lens in a kit (the first being a general purpose zoom like the kit lens, 17-55mm, or 15-85mm, and the second/third being the ultrawide or a telephoto zoom like a 70-200mm or 70-300mm lens).
If you
Thank you both for the feedback on the general lens! I
If you get the 10-22mm first, as a next lens you could get either the 24-70 f/2.8L or the 24-105mm f/4L IS. I actually have both lenses, and use them for different purposes. The 24-70mm for sports or anything indoor, and the 24-105mm for landscape. Generally these lenses are criticized on 1.6x bodies since 24mm isn't very wide (about 38mm equiv.), and I agree with this criticism. However, if you have the 10-22mm and are looking to upgrade to FF someday, you would still have wide angle covered.
All the EF-S lenses mentioned hold their value very well, and you could easily sell them on eBay once you decide to upgrade to FF. I usually suggest people buy what is appropriate for them at the time, and worry about FF when they're very close to purchasing a FF body. Unless you see a FF body in your near future, I wouldn't let incompatibility with FF bodies concern you much.
Thanks for the suggestions, those are both good lenses that I
I agree with Trowski. I used to buy lenses planning on one day buying a full frame digital body. Eight years from my first Canon digital body, and three bodies later, and I am still shooting on a 1.6x crop body.