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

[BES]

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[]

[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).

[BES]

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

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

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.

[BES]

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.

[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?


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.

[BES]

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...

[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.
<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.

[BES]

*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.

[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.