Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 30D Wide Angle Lens Dilemma  
User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5336 times:

Greetings fellow photographers,

After having owned the EOS 30D for 5 months now (my first DSLR), I have run myself up into a wide angle lens dilemma. I own the following lenses:

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS

I could not be happier with my two L's, especially the 70-200. However, I am somewhat disappointed with the 10-22 since I got the 70-200. It simply cannot keep up with my L's. Also, I am disappointed by the low build quality for the price I paid. So after a month of deliberation of whether I should sell the lens, I have come to the following conclusion. I can either trade the lens for the EF 17-40mm f/4 L, or add 300$ for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I was first drawn to the 17-40 since I was very happy with my other L's, but have learnt through many reviews that the 17-55 has higher image quality, especially wide open at f/2.8 and 4. Also, the IS is a feature I have learnt is invaluable at any focal length. However, the 17-55 being an EF-S, I am worried about build quality, since this is where the 10-22 disappointed most. At the moment, the 17-55 seems the best option since I would no longer need to buy the 50mm 1.8 for low light (2.8 + IS is good enough), and I wouldn't have to buy a flash (I don't like flash photography, but f/4 is too dark for indoors), which amounts to the price difference between the 17-40 and the 17-55. So the following questions arise:

1. Will I miss the 10mm of the 10-22 (is 17 wide enough)?
2. Does the 17-55 have the dust problems I have heard about (dust gathering inside the lens)?
3. What is your take on the build quality of the 17-55?
4. Does my logic make sense?

Selling the 24-105 is NOT an alternative. I am very happy with this lens and wouldn't sell it for any price. Essentially I would have two different mid range lenses for different purposes (17-55 would be my wide angle/low light/indoor lens). I am also not interested in the 16-35 f/2.8, as this goes beyond my budget.

Thanks for any replies,
Alex

20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5332 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

What are you using the 10-22 for? If you are shooting cockpits and cabins, I would say wider is better.

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5328 times:

Ditch the Canon 10-20 and go with Sigma's version of it. 17 is not enough.

User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5319 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 1):
What are you using the 10-22 for? If you are shooting cockpits and cabins, I would say wider is better.

Cockpits are a bit difficult these days, but cabins yes, and window views. I have found however that going wider than 17mm will capture the window frame, and so there is no point in using the wider settings (except if you want to get creative and intentionally include the window frame). Not having IS makes dusk, dawn and night shots very difficult without raising the ISO too high. I also use the lens for landscape and building photography, and find that even though the 10mm shots look very different, they aren't particularly better than my longer shots.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 2):
Ditch the Canon 10-20 and go with Sigma's version of it. 17 is not enough.

I try not to buy third party equipment, but after looking at the reviews of the sigma, your reasoning seems valid. The sigma is a lot better built, and a lot cheaper (but a little slower as well). However, I am trying to rationalize not having an ultra wide at all, since 17mm may be enough for me (I used to shoot on a powershot S1, which started at 38mm, so 27.2 equivalent should be enough). And I don't have to buy a flash, and get IS.


Before anyone asks, I do not intend to move to Full Frame anytime soon (in some years perhaps), so EF-S and FF compatibility is not an issue.

More replies welcome,
Alex


User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5293 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Thread starter):
EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS

Love mine too...

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Thread starter):
I can either trade the lens for the EF 17-40mm f/4 L, or add 300$ for the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I was first drawn to the 17-40 since I was very happy with my other L's, but have learnt through many reviews that the 17-55 has higher image quality, especially wide open at f/2.8 and 4. Also, the IS is a feature I have learnt is invaluable at any focal length. However, the 17-55 being an EF-S, I am worried about build quality, since this is where the 10-22 disappointed most. At the moment, the 17-55 seems the best option since I would no longer need to buy the 50mm 1.8 for low light (2.8 + IS is good enough), and I wouldn't have to buy a flash (I don't like flash photography, but f/4 is too dark for indoors), which amounts to the price difference between the 17-40 and the 17-55.

From my experience with the EF-S lenses I have used, they are all shit. Especially compared to L glass. Since you'll be using photoshop to correct slight image defects anyway, why not go with the 17-40mm.

You could even consider the other f/2.8 L, I think its 17-85 or something.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineAC773 From Canada, joined Nov 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 4):
You could even consider the other f/2.8 L, I think its 17-85 or something.

16-35  Smile



Better to be nouveau than never to have been riche at all.
User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

Quoting AC773 (Reply 5):
16-35

Don't they have a bigger one? It might be 18-70 or something like that. Can't be assed looking it up.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5245 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 3):
I try not to buy third party equipment,

..then you are throwing a lot of money out the window....

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 3):
(I used to shoot on a powershot S1, which started at 38mm, so 27.2 equivalent should be enough). And I don't have to buy a flash, and get IS.

38mm on that point and shoot is not the same focal length as on a 35mm body, so your comment on 27.2 is meaningless.

Don't need a flash?  rotfl ....yeah, that little pop up should do the trick right?


User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5236 times:

Quoting Monteycarlos (Reply 6):
Don't they have a bigger one? It might be 18-70 or something like that. Can't be assed looking it up.

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, and that lens is both too slow and too low quality for my needs.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 7):
38mm on that point and shoot is not the same focal length as on a 35mm body, so your comment on 27.2 is meaningless.

38mm was the cameras 35mm equivalent field of view, so my point of the 17mm (27.2mm on full frame) being wider is completely valid.

Quoting JeffM (Reply 7):
Don't need a flash? ....yeah, that little pop up should do the trick right?

I understand and completely agree that the pop up flash is useless on DSLRs, however, I have found that in the roughly 8000 shots I have taken to date on the 30D, I have taken less than ten shots using a flash. I simply don't like using it, and after testing the 430EX some weeks ago, decided that its not worth the price for the few pictures I would use it for. In my opinion flashes often ruin the atmosphere of a picture, and so I try and do without them. Thats why I'm thinking the f/2.8 is useful for low light shots, add onto that IS.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 8):
38mm was the cameras 35mm equivalent field of view, so my point of the 17mm (27.2mm on full frame) being wider is completely valid.

17mm on a full frame body is way different then a point and shoot lens at 38mm, and 17mm on your (1.6x crop) 30d is going to be different from both 17 FF and 38m on a point and shoot. If you think 17mm on a 1.6x crop body is wide enough, then go for it. Seems like you already have made up your mind anyway.


User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5200 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 8):
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS, and that lens is both too slow and too low quality for my needs.

I was actually thinking of this one... http://www.canon.com.au/products/cam...om_lenses/ef24-70mm_f2.8L_USM.aspx

Seems it would be useless in your case anyway.

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 8):
Thats why I'm thinking the f/2.8 is useful for low light shots, add onto that IS.

Should do the trick. I hate the look of flash in light conditions that would have got away without using it. Of the 8000 shots I have taken on my 400D, less than 100 would be with flash.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlinePaparadzi From Malaysia, joined Jan 2005, 201 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5171 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Thread starter):
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS
EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS

I have almost the same setup (my 70-200 is a 2.8 IS) and I'm very happy with it. I can't see a reason to ditch the 10-22 as I found the quality is more than adequate. I've used them for cockpit shots, there is simply no alternative for 16-mm-equivalent lens. The Sigma 10-20 may be good, but if you already have a 10-22, why bother?

My advise? Buy the 17-55 if you must, but keep the 10-22. You'll never know when you'll need it.



Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5161 times:

@ Paparadzi,

Thanks for your input, but my budget doesn't cover another 1000$ lens. It is either the 10-22 or the 17-55. I can see your reason for keeping 10-22 and in your situation (as a pilot as it says in your profile), I would do the same. However, I have yet to become a pilot (hopefully with LH in a couple of months), and so my pictures are limited to cabin and window views, and I think at this point the 17-55 may serve me better. Then again, I'll miss the 10mm on certain shots, and I am having trouble rationalizing either case as both lenses are very useful.


User currently offlineMonteycarlos From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 2107 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5153 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 12):
Then again, I'll miss the 10mm on certain shots, and I am having trouble rationalizing either case as both lenses are very useful.

FWIW I can get away with 24mm for my cockpit shots. The B727 does have a large cockpit though.



It's a beautiful night to fly like a phoenix...
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 33
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5145 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 8):
I have found that in the roughly 8000 shots I have taken to date on the 30D, I have taken less than ten shots using a flash. I simply don't like using it, and after testing the 430EX some weeks ago, decided that its not worth the price for the few pictures I would

Really? I've found it really handy. I'd agree it's not ideal at night, but when you need some 'instant light' when conditions ar e bit dim, it's a great tool, and I'm still learning the technique:





I'd heard positive things about the 10-22; when it was launched I remember one or two users saying it was pretty high quality, hence the relatively (for an EFs anyway) steep price.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 47
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5116 times:

Alex,

if I were you, I would not change anything.
Leave it as is, you bases are covered from 10 to 200mm.

............. you won't find the perfect girl, even if you look forever.......

Vasco G.

p.s. you may have received a bad copy....mine is just fine, of course it can not keep up with the 24-70 f2.8 or 70-200f2.8 IS in terms of image and built quality...it is just an EF- S lens.


User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5080 times:

@ Sulman,

thanks for sharing a very different perspective of using the flash (assuming you used it in the pictures you posted), maybe I'll take the time to reconsider the flash.

Quoting AKE0404AR (Reply 15):
Leave it as is, you bases are covered from 10 to 200mm.

I actually built my lens setup on covering these focal lengths, initially with the 10-22 and the 24-105 five months ago, adding the 70-200 two months ago. At the time I bought the 10-22, I was stunned by the extreme wide angle the lens gave me, coming from a 38mm point and shoot (35mm equivalent field of view). However, I found over the following months that I was using my 24-105 a lot more, and though the wide angle was fun to use, I wasn't using it often (mainly when 24 was too long). Since the 70-200 arrived with its awesome image quality, I have been doubting my investment in the 10-22 as its image quality is nowhere near my L's. I have kept it so far because 24mm isn't wide enough in some situations. I've been pondering a while to trade it for the 17-40 L, given I was very happy with my other L's, and disappointed by EF-S, but the 17-55 caught my attention as being a lot more useful in terms of focal ranges and low light versatility, an aspect that is missing in my current lineup. I know canon's wide angle lenses aren't as good as their telephoto ones, but the reviews of the 17-55 are very tempting (in terms of image quality).

Quoting AKE0404AR (Reply 15):
you may have received a bad copy

A reasonable assumption, but I think I may have gotten a used copy, which was sold to me as new by my camera shop. I didn't realize this at the time I bought it since I had no way of distinguishing between new and used lenses, except for using Canon's manufacturing code which was only on the L's. Only after testing a different 10-22 a month later, did i realize that the zoom ring was much too loose to be new. Unfortunately, living in Malaysia, I can't just return the lens for a new copy. What I can do is trade it in, but I must do that within a month as I'll be moving away indefinitely. So it's either keep a bad/used copy, or get the 17-55, which sounds a lot more tempting at this stage. Perhaps the situation would be different if I had a better copy of the lens, but I don't, and getting one at this stage is very complicated.


User currently offlinePaparadzi From Malaysia, joined Jan 2005, 201 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5068 times:

Quoting LHB727230Adv (Reply 16):
Unfortunately, living in Malaysia,

May I know which shop sells you used equipment as new? The photographic community in Malaysia would like to know that.



Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.
User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5058 times:

@ Paparadzi,

The shop I bought my 10-22mm from is apparently an outlet of Foto Easycam Sdn. Bhd. If you are familiar with Penang Island (where I live), the outlet is located on the ground floor of the KOMTAR building in Georgetown. Over the past three years I've bought many photographic accessories here and never had a problem until now. I ended up buying my 70-200 from a different outlet (Photo President) as a result of my experience with the 10-22mm. However, I just want to clarify that I am SUSPECTING the 10-22mm to be a used lens, I cannot confirm this. If anyone knows how I could, advice would be welcome. My suspicion is merely based on a VERY loose zoom ring as compared to other copies of this lens, leading me to believe that this lens has been used before.

PS. This and my previous post are not meant to offend anyone, I am merely commenting on my experience and the fact that most Malaysian camera outlets, to my knowledge at least, do not feature a return of lens policy. Please correct me if I am wrong.


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5048 times:

Alex,

ask yourself the following question. Which main purpose does the 10-22 serve?
you want to have it wide.....this is your lens.

If I were you I would send it to an official Canon dealer to have it checked out. Maybe the can tighten the zoom ring and calibrate the lens.

The 17-55 may be a good lens, but from experience I can tell you, you'll be'll missing the extra mm, especially when taking cabin shots etc.........

The 10-22 is without a doubt not your every day lens....it comes into place at special situation.

I'd be interested to see some side by side comparison shots.

Vasco G.


User currently offlineLHB727230Adv From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5033 times:

After reading some more reviews, and thanks to many of your comments, I've decided that I will trade in my 10-22mm and add another 300$ to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which at this point I think will be more useful to me. However, if I find that I am missing the 10mm end, I will save up to buy the sigma 10-20, since I can't justify the cost of the 10-22mm especially when the sigma's build quality is better.

Quoting AKE0404AR (Reply 19):
The 10-22 is without a doubt not your every day lens....it comes into place at special situation.

Thanks for mentioning exactly this, it has made me realize that I have payed too much for a lens I don't use enough. My decision will allow me to see if I really need this a lens as wide as 10mm, and if I do, I will buy one which is significantly cheaper for a product of similar quality.

Thanks for all replies,
Alex


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another Wide Angle Lens Help Please! posted Sat Jan 6 2007 23:54:50 by Glapira
Wide Angle Lens Help posted Sat Jan 6 2007 19:26:55 by Raptors
Wide Angle Lens Question! posted Mon Jul 31 2006 11:48:18 by Halcyon
Choosing A Wide Angle Lens - Some Links... posted Sun Nov 14 2004 14:53:02 by Maiznblu_757
Wide Angle Lens Advice Please? posted Tue Jan 6 2004 17:26:07 by Manzoori
Wide-angle Lens Advice posted Mon Jun 2 2003 16:53:01 by Jarek
Coolpix 4300/extra Wide Angle Lens posted Sat May 17 2003 04:08:50 by Hmmmm...
Looking For A Good Wide Angle Lens posted Sun Nov 24 2002 14:05:22 by Apuneger
Canon 100-400L Is And A Wide Angle Zoom posted Sun Jan 4 2004 16:17:16 by Ghsweusa
Advice Needed On Wide Angle Lenses For Canon Dslr posted Mon Sep 29 2003 18:21:17 by FL350