Wide Angle Lens Help

[Z_Fan]

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens (http://ca.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=4205950/search=canon+lens)

Versus

Canon 16-35mm f2.8L USM EF Zoom Lens (http://ca.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=533991#description)

Ideas/Comments/Suggestions on what lens would be better suited to a starting user.

How important do you feel the additional stop is on the latter linked lens?

Am I correct in understanding that the 10-22 lens will allow for even wider image capture than the 16-35 lens?

Lastly - there are some lenses that are simply 20mm (or whatever) fixed lenses. For anyone who might have (or have had) this scenario, did you find it too limiting not having zoom capability?

Does anyone have a telephoto lens that they use a lot? Or do you find that the telephoto lens has too narrow of a scope. Like, if you do have one, when do you use it the most?

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens (http://ca.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=4205950/search=canon+lens)

Versus

Canon 16-35mm f2.8L USM EF Zoom Lens (http://ca.pricegrabber.com/search_techspecs_full.php/masterid=533991#description)

Ideas/Comments/Suggestions on what lens would be better suited to a starting user.

Both lenses are supposed to be good, so really it's a matter of how wide you want to shoot. The 16-35mm is an L lens, so you can count on the image quality to be pretty top notch. I've been reading some reviews on the 10-22 and most people seem to claim that the image quality is just as good, if not the same, as other L lenses. The 10-22 is an EF-S lens, so should you ever decide to upgrade to a different camera body, there's the chance this lens may not be as compatible as regular EF lenses.

You may also want to consider the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 I mentioned in your other thread. You don't have the extra 2mm the 10-20 has, but the image quality is supposed to be just as good for ~$300 less.

If you're not in any rush to get a new lens, you might want to wait and see what some of the other 3rd party companies are offering. Sigma and Tamron are releasing new wide-angle lenses very shortly. I was just about to buy the Tokina last week, but decided to hold off until some reviews and comparisons come out. I'm pretty much sold on the Tokina, but you never know...



How important do you feel the additional stop is on the latter linked lens?

Depends on what you think you'll be shooting. In dimly lit or fast moving situations, the extra aperture's always nice to have.



Am I correct in understanding that the 10-22 lens will allow for even wider image capture than the 16-35 lens?

Yes.



Lastly - there are some lenses that are simply 20mm (or whatever) fixed lenses. For anyone who might have (or have had) this scenario, did you find it too limiting not having zoom capability?

These are referred to as prime lenses. Depends on what you're shooting and your shooting style, I guess. Usually what they lack in variable focal length, they make up in sharpness and aperture. Most of the time when I have my camera with me, I have no idea what I'm going to shoot (I just bring it along in case I ever need it), so I like to have the flexibility of a zoom. But primes can be pretty useful too. I've seen some really great shots, especially portraits of people, taken with primes. I use my 50mm f/1.8 II with extension tubes to take macros too.



Does anyone have a telephoto lens that they use a lot? Or do you find that the telephoto lens has too narrow of a scope. Like, if you do have one, when do you use it the most?

I have a 70-200mm f/4L and it's a great lens. I use it in situations where I just can't get close enough:

http://www.spacegoggles.com/images/photos/goose0001.jpg

http://www.spacegoggles.com/images/photos/gopher0001.jpg

http://www.spacegoggles.com/images/photos/squirrel0001.jpg

Combined with a close-up filter, it makes one heck of a macro set-up while still giving me decent working distance (50% crop):

http://www.spacegoggles.com/images/photos/bumblebee0001.jpg


And here was my first attempt at shooting sports with this lens:
http://www.typicalfish.com/gallery/gallery.php?section=2

I can see how the 70-200 f/2.8L IS would benefit with sports because of the added aperture, but that lens is too much for me!

[Z_Fan]

^

Alright. Those are good shots too with the telephoto lens. That's kind of what I figured to be using it for if I had one of them.

I am thinking I might just take my camera down to the camera store and actually have them put the various lenses right onto my camera. Set up a tripod and take pictures with the lenses I am interested in purchasing.

Then I'll take those files home and compare what each lens is actually able to capture. (As far as what is in the frame)

Should be interesting anyhow, and I'll be able to decide better what way to go.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
How important do you feel the additional stop is on the latter linked lens?
If you're shooting low light indoors or fast action (sports, cars ect) the extra stop is vital


Am I correct in understanding that the 10-22 lens will allow for even wider image capture than the 16-35 lens?

Lastly - there are some lenses that are simply 20mm (or whatever) fixed lenses. For anyone who might have (or have had) this scenario, did you find it too limiting not having zoom capability?

Yes, the 10-22 will go wider...the smaller the number, the wider the lens...and if you can get a decent quality wide angle with some zoom in it, I HIGHLY reccomend it!


Does anyone have a telephoto lens that they use a lot? Or do you find that the telephoto lens has too narrow of a scope. Like, if you do have one, when do you use it the most?
I use the 70-200 f/2.8 and it's incredible. I use it just as much if not more than my wide angle! I started with a f/4 telephoto and within a week I took it back and paid the extra $1200 to upgrade. It was too slow to shoot much of anything, including hockey, which I was doing alot of at the time. If you can afford it, get both. If not, there are some decent quality amature lenses that will do a huge range (I think a popular one is the Canon 28-105) for fairly cheap (couple hundred bucks, but they do have a limited apperture range) My mom uses one and the pictures are pretty decent.

[C4S]

16-35 mm F2.8L is a damn nice lens .. and works for full frame (very important for me)

but .. it is so expensive ..

do u do a lots of indoor shoot? if u dont need F2.8 (good to hv) and u will never use 35mm camera, then go with the 10-22 is fine. (or the sigma 10-20, or tamon 11-18)

:D

[Z_Fan]

Melinda,

Do you have a Canon 16-35mm f2.8L USM EF Zoom Lens?

Does that lens auto-focus? It doesn't say it does...but I'd like auto-focus...

I'm thinking about just spending the money on a good lens that I can keep forever. Both the above wide angle and a good telephoto too.

[benyl]

I shot a wedding a couple of weekends ago.

I had the 16-35 2.8 L on one camera and the 70-200 2.8 IS L on the other camera. Yes, the 16-35 is auto focus.

Sure I was missing the middle part of the available focal lengths, but that is what feet are for.

before I got the 16-35, I used a 35mm fix focal all the time. It was on my camera 80% of the time. Just use your feet. Sure some of the time, you can't move, but sometime even having zoom doesn't help.

If you intend on doing the hobby for quite some time, I would invest in the L series of lenses.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you upgrade your camera to a Canon 1D, 1D MK II, 1Ds, 1Ds MKII, you won't be able to use the 10-22.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Z_Fan
Melinda,

Do you have a Canon 16-35mm f2.8L USM EF Zoom Lens?

Does that lens auto-focus? It doesn't say it does...but I'd like auto-focus...

I'm thinking about just spending the money on a good lens that I can keep forever. Both the above wide angle and a good telephoto too.
Yes, it autofocuses for sure...you'll get good at manually focusing as well if you work at it :) I shoot weddings and car shows with my wide angle (16-35mm f/2.8L USM EF) all the time and it's unbelievably worth it for me!

And as benyl said, get a universal lens, the 10-22 is from a new series of lenses just meant to fit on 2 or 3 cameras...

[Z_Fan]

Alright.

Well - from what I can gather there is no point in my buying a 17-35 or 16-35 lens because the 17-85 lens I already have pretty much covers it for wide angle shots. Would you all agree? So, essentially I'd be paying the entire shot for the sake of one f/stop. And since I'm not pro, I'll just have to have long exposures! LOL! Unless I go ultra-wide and get a 10-22 lens, I'm not going to see a big difference in what is actually captured (frame wise)

So, I am much more likely to get the 70-200 f/2.8 lens [I found out you can get this without the Image Stablizer but I think I want the IS on this lens anyhow] and then I am probably covered for what I want to do. I'm already annoyed that the lens I bought is an EF-S lens and it might not be usable when I upgrade the body. But, that likely is a few years away so no worries. And this 70-200 lens is sweet! (And I can move it to other bodies)

I'll get a price then on the 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

How valuable do you folks consider the extension tubes to be? Should I definitely get a set? I am thinking this will be nice to have if I want to shoot stuff real close up...

Alright, that's all for now.

Thanks again for all your advice.

[benyl]

The 17-85 that you have may cover all the of the focal distances covered, but you are missing the sharpness that the L lens will produce.

Most lenses wide open will be a little soft. Generally, to get a tack sharp photo, you want to stop in down a little. Since you are starting 1 stop smaller already, this limits what you can shoot indoors. i.e. you will have to carry a tripod, or a monopod at the very least, with you all the time.

It all depends on what you are shooting. If you intend on shooting indoors with any movement. I mean even movement of a person standing still (nobody can stand perfectly still) you will get motion blur.

I am not trying to sway you, but I am just trying to let you know what you options are. Like cars, photography is expensive.

Personally, I would wait if I were you for another wide angle. I am sure that there is an L series lens in the works that will be WIDE!

[Z_Fan]

I know I need to get a faster lens ... but for now it doesn't make sense (financially) to do that. I might have to think about just buying a faster fixed wide angle and go that route for now. Because that can be done for hundreds as opposed to thousands.

I would rather spend the thousands on the 70-200 f/2.8 camera and just deal with my existing 17-85 lens the best that I can. Most of what I would be shooting will be outdoors anyhow, so that is good I suppose.

I think I will do what you suggest and wait for another wide angle to come out...and save up some $$$ as this could get expensive in a hurry.

[benyl]

You are welcome to try my 35mm 2.0 to see what a fixed lens is like.

I know it isn't that wide, but it will give you the feel.