First lens - need help

[shafiq]

Need some advice as to which lens should I buy as my first lens. Considering the 17-40L and the 24-70L. I am purchasing a 10D body tomorrow.

I reviewed the EXIF information of shots I have taken for the past 2 years with my trusted Sony DCS-85 and to my surprise found that all my shots focal length was in the range of 7.0mm-21.00mm. The bulk being closer to the 7.00mm focal length.

Now what does this mean? Does it mean that my kind of photography is suited to Ultra-Wide angle lenses, or does it mean that I was refraining from using the digital zoom on the camera? Or does it mean that since I never had the capability of using say a 24-70 "true" lens, I just did the best I could with what I had...

Comments greatly appreciated.

If anyone has any pictures taken with either or both lenses as a comparision at the extremes of the focal lengths...that would help :-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

It means that your shots were towards the wide side of the Sony,. but once converted to a 35mm equivelent it would mean about 35mm.
...which is about equal to a 28mm on the 10D ..

(this converting is confusing :) )

I have the 17-40mm,. it is my highest "quality" lens,..

That said I would never recomend it as a fisrt lens. It is wide,.. very wide and makes it very difficult to take any other kind of photo.

If you are going to have only one lens for a while,. start with something that starts at 28mm,.. or 24mm at the widest and zooms up from there.

Many start with the 28-135 IS but there is no "L" version,. if "L" is your only acceptable route, it may have to be a 24-70mm f/2.8

P.S.,.. that Sony's "10D equivelent" lens was probably close to a 28mm-80mm or there abouts.

[shafiq]

I totally overlooked the equivalency aspect of a consumer digicam compared with 35mm film. Thanks for reminding me.

To get the true equivalent in 35mm I have to use an ever higher multiplication factor (4.85 to be precise). This will put my pics in the 34-102mm range. This would overlap the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24-70mm f/2.8L. I guess I am back where I started with my gut feeling!

You mentioned that you would not recommend the 17-40 lens...do you have any specific examples of pics that you have taken that could have been better in a longer lens.

Thanks

[rdenney]

shafiq wrote:
To get the true equivalent in 35mm I have to use an ever higher multiplication factor (4.85 to be precise). This will put my pics in the 34-102mm range. This would overlap the 17-40mm f/4L and the 24-70mm f/2.8L. I guess I am back where I started with my gut feeling!

You mentioned that you would not recommend the 17-40 lens...do you have any specific examples of pics that you have taken that could have been better in a longer lens.

Thanks

That's a tough question. I tend to prefer a wide view, being as I am a member of the Pretty Rocks School of photography. I use a 20-35 USM zoom, which has frankly excellent performance. On the 10D, it isn't wide enough for me, but I like images so wide that it makes some people seasick. I'm waiting for my 14 to get back from Sigma with new chips.

If you preferred the wide end of a 35-100 (35mm equivalent) range, then you'll prefer the wide end of a range of 22 to 65 on a 10D. The 24-70 is almost that wide, but the difference between 22 and 24 is not nothing. You might consider the 20-35 as a lower-cost general-purpose lens, and perhaps a 28-135 IS zoom. You could buy both for the cost of the 17-40L alone.

I just looked at the MTF curves on the Canon site for the 20-35 USM and the 17-40L, and within the frame of the 10D, the 20-35 is at least as good and at f/8 it's better (thought not by much). The MTF curve for the 17-40 just shows the contrast end of the measurement and not the resolution end, but what it shows is about the same. It is, of course, much better built, and it has that extra 3mm on the wide end and (to me, worthless) extra 5mm on the long end. MTF ain't everything. I know this is heresy, but even Photodo rated the 20-35 higher than the old 17-35L, which I lusted after for years and now will never get.

Rick "who thinks the main differences between the 17-40L and the 20-35 are 3mm on the wide end, a red stripe, a few gaskets, some metal, and $450" Denney

[shafiq]

hmm...deciding on a lens is not getting any easier :-(

[CyberDyneSystems]

shafiq wrote:
hmm...deciding on a lens is not getting any easier :-(


Tell me about it,.. and when you do decide,.. you inevetiably ,. and usually within the week,. think that you should taken the "Other" option,... :D

[shafiq]

CyberDyne,

Which lenses do you have and which out of all of them do you use the most. Can you point me to some shots that you have taken and regard as the pride of your collection? Preferably people shots.

Thx