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
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
Mark
Originally Posted by clemmb
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.
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.
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 []
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.
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.
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 [
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote