Originally Posted by Max@Home
Not quite, the 10-22 tends to get a bit soft on the edges on the "longer" (I can't really call 22m long!!!) focal lengths... it's great for what it does, though. But, for the overlapping focal lengths, I think the 17-40 wins.
No chance. :-) The 17-40 is leagues better than the 10-22 build-wise.
Tony
I'm only an amateur so I'm not sure how valuable my advice is, but I'll tell youabout mypersonal experience.
I was in your situation two months ago. I onlyhad theOKlens that came with my digital rebelxti kit and wanted to expand.After a lot of research Ibought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It has helped me produce my best photos so farand i love it. It's more expensive, but if you're going to buy an L lens that has a few different versions of itself, go all the way. It's an investment that you won't regret, especially if you want to push your potential.
In theory, I suppose, you could rely on slower shutter speeds with the 70-200 f/4 IS to shoot in low light. BUT, youwill limit yourself because motion will have to be blurred with a slower shutter. Blurred motion canproduce some nice effects, but if it's the only kind of effect you can create, it could be upsetting.With 2.8, you can still freeze motion at concerts, when the sun goes down etc. and get acceptable quality. (Concerts are SO HARD to shoot! ARGH!)
Personally, I will always go with thelower f number. My EFs18-55mm f/3.5 lens is useless once the sun starts going down or if I'm indoors, or it's shady. Wide open,the 70-200f/2.8 IS ispretty sharp, but it gets so sharp from 4 beyond, it's ridiculous. And f4 is where the other lens only begins!
hope that gives you a little bit of insight, and congrats on your first L purchase!
I personally have the 70-200/4L IS and I think I don't need to look any further if my goal is street shots and a little sport (in not bad lighting). I'm sure that the F2.8 aperture willNOT make up the IS if you're talking about handholdability since that I get consistent good shots at 1/30 @200mm. I will not handhold the 70-200/2.8 at all at this speed no matter what focal length I'm using. Also note that the F4L IS is half as heavy as the f2.8. If you goal is also to save weight, the F4L IS is right for you.
regarding wide angle, I would prefer the 17-40/4L in your case because this lens is capable for full frame usage and it is a L grade lens. since you mentioned the 10-22, I'm going to assume you have a 1.6x cropped body. Choices among the 3rd party lenses also make sense as they deliver more for the cost.
ll depends on what you have for a camera body
True, and what you think you WILL have for a camera body in the near future.
If the camera has really good higher ISO performance, you can make up for the 'speed' of the lens with the sensitivity of the camera.
You can buy an 'L' lens for a camera with a smaller sensor, but you'll never really get the image potential out of that lens until you go full frame.
BTW, it seems that I was missing some information on using lenses designed for small sensors on full frame cameras. Nikon and Sony allow you to do it. I didn't think this possible with a full frame body and a 'Small sensor' lens, but apparently Nikon and Sony 'cheat' so to speak, by simply using the full frame sensors inner area to act like a 'small' sensor. The resolution used, in terms of pixel count, drops to less than half of the original sensor resolution, and what you see in the viewfinder isn't going to be what you get, but at least you can use your old lenses.
If you were starting from scratch, it would be a stupid way to do it, but it does acknoledge that many users may want to use some of their old 'small' lenses, and if it were an application where you were going to crop anyway, because you wouldn't want to be paying for or carrying around the glass that would get you 'close enough', maybe it makes sense there too.
Easy choice, get the 2.8. Even better, save for a couple weeks and just get yourself the 2.8 IS, you're already spending over a grand, what's a couple hundred more if you save for it?
Some people mention the f4 being less conspicuous. Oh pleez. If you're worried about the color then get a lens jacket for $15 or wrap it in gaff tape.
The difference from f4 to f2.8 is light years, don't sell yourself short and get the real deal.
I did not answer untill I did not find this review that confirm my data on 70-200 f 2.8 on APS sensor
[url="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_c16/page6.asp[/url]
DPREVIEW.com states:
[b]Conclusion - Cons[/b]
<ul type="square"][*]Slightly soft wide open (most notably on APS-C) [/list]
I can't give you any advice on the 70-200 IS or non from experience, but at that point I'd probably go with the IS. I mean, if you want to leave the tripod at home, you're probably really going to want the IS, even though it's a little slower, but if IS corrects for 3 or 4 stops, that's going to be a bigger difference than the physical extra size of the aperture, since it's only a 1 or 2 stop bigger ap. size.
As far as the wide angle, I don't own one, but I've used it, and you can seriously get 5 feet of wall into a picture, when your 1.5 feet away from it. Obviously the distortion becomes present, but acceptable for that crazy 10mm angle. When zoomed in to 22mm the distortion is all but invisible, they did an incredible job on this "non L" lens. It's going to be my next lens, actually. You can't ever seem to get far enough away inside, especially for weddings, and even zoomed in at 22mm it's still wide, and the distortion is all but non existant.
You can fix a little bit of it in photoshop too, so the lens is extremely useable through the whole focal range.
Hope that helped a little!
While IS may not stop things in motion, it allows you to shoot at slower shutter speeds that will still freeze relatively slow moving objects in sStreet portraits but would normally blur due to hand shake.
Rule of thumb is you shutter speed should be 1/(focal length)to avoid hand shake blurring. So at 200mm you would need at least 1/200. With IS you could probably shoot at 1/60(?) and still freeze your subject pretty well and not experience blurring from hand shake.
I owned the 70-200 4.0 non IS and I hardly used it. At that focal length w/o IS. I couldn't find too many uses for unless it was studio portrait with strobe lighting or outdoor sports on bright days. So I sold that with in a year of purchase.
So for discretion and value I'd say 4.0 IS.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote