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

[Cory]

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.

[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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[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 []

[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.

[Jarhead5811]

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.

[piiooo]

...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.

[BES]

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.

[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.

[BES]

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...