FT: 10-22 and cash for 16-35

[Tumbl3w33ds]

I am quite certain this is a longshot, but I am looking for a 16-35 and would like to trade for my 10-22 and cash. If I am posting this in the wrong place, please let me know. :)

Edited to add...it is the 16-35 II I am looking for... :)

Closing thread, I am taking a break from B/S/T for a while....

[bakatari]

do you have a price in mind for an outright selling of the 10-22?

[Tumbl3w33ds]

If I decide to outright sell, its probably going to be $599-ish, plus PP and shipping.

[timescapes.org]

hehe... yeah, kind of a longshot.

[Tumbl3w33ds]

I know, I know. I am just going to sell the dang 10-22 anyhow. :(

[timescapes.org]

You should be able to get a good price.

Just tell people, "This is the lens that beat the $70,000 Hawk 10-24 cinema lens in a head-to-head test." And it's true! :)

[Tumbl3w33ds]

Hey you know what, I have no idea what you are talking about but...do you use the 10-22? There is a reason I ask ;)

[timescapes.org]

Hey you know what, I have no idea what you are talking about but...do you use the 10-22? There is a reason I ask ;)

... do I use a 10-22?? Only on every single shoot! I worship that lens.

My Flickr Stream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/digitallion/)

why are you giving yours up?

[Tumbl3w33ds]

See, I kind of worship YOUR STUFF. Which makes me rethink it all. I wanted 2.8 because I do a lot of low-light. I know, I know. Do you like, have classes and stuff? :P

[timescapes.org]

hah, my class would consist of driving out to the boondocks, drinking beer, having a bonfire party under the stars, then hoping i don't screw up my camera settings when i finally get around to shooting...

really, though, the 10-22 is good in low light. the 16-35 won't be very wide on an EF-S body. another option is the tokina 11-16, but you're only gaining less than 1 stop of light, so i don't know if it would be worth it.

[Tumbl3w33ds]

OK. I have been drinking beer all night, as I do on my rare nights off, when the little angel is safe and sound in bed. I took the tripod out. I tried the 10-22 yet AGAIN to get the Tucson city line. It was a waste of about 50 shutter clicks for nothing. I have read your site. The blogs. I don't have the timer thing. I do have a wireless Cleon whatever. I suck. I mean, I really suck. I thought 16-35 would buy me something, who knows what. I just know I suck. Once the sun sets, I can't get 10-22 to go. I flashlight trick it, but then, everything turns out dark anyhow. Tonight there were killer saturated clouds...ready to leak colors everywhere on the city skyline. I tricked AF on my lamp just inside the screen door. Black. I can read all day and shoot all night and I still SUCK :( I have been on your site/blogs no less than a hundred times, just to glean to preliminaries. I am so discouraged, once the sun goes down.

[MBurns]

Did you try just using manual fovus to shoot the Tucson city line? Assuming that by city line, you were referring to the skyline, it should be pretty much an infinity-focus shot. Focus, then try different combinations of ISO and exposure to get the image you want. If you are finding f/3.5 to be useless, I can't imagine that f/2.8 would be more than marginally better for nighttime landscape shots. For that type of shot, I find no difference in focusing between the 16-35mm f/2.8 and an a 24-105mm f/4.0. Indoors and close-up, the 16-33 is better. I have the original 16-35mm, previously used with film, and was actually considering switching to the one you have to get a wider field of view on my digital crop camera. I am hesitant only because I will be using it in remote backcountry locations on kayaking and skiing trips and cave heard of durability issues if knocked about during transport.

[KW Ghost Ship]

Deb,

Remind me about this thread next time we talk...... something pertaining to your methods. ;)