Canon lens ?? L L L L ?

[fatrat]

Im going to get a new Lens and im thinking of gettinf a EF-S10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM.
Why because the broucher i got of the 20D in Japan had alot of pics taken with this Lens Rangeing from close ups of a person to Landscape shots so it seems very versitle
But you guys mostly rave about the 28_70 L lens would that be a better choice
What makes the L range of lenses better then the other canon lenses?

[mr.photoguy]

Well here is a link to a topic in which chat about the 10-22,28-70 (along with another L in that range), and the 17-40 .
The topic got a little heated, so you may want to skip over a few posts.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/198720/0

[lost]

I will take a stab at this one. First of all these two lenses don't have the same focal range. They are designed for two different purposes. The 10-22mm being ultra-wide zoom. The 28-70 L is more of a wide to medium zoom. The 10-22 being good for Lanscape type shots(and anything else a wide angle is suited to). The 28-70 being more for group and portrait shooting, but of course not limited to this. You need to decide which focal range would suit you better. This depends ofcourse on your chosen targets.

Your question of the L lens. They are typically sharper, sturdier, and have a wider aperature.(Lower f-stop)

[RichardtheSane]

Really you ned to decide what range is best for you.

To be honest the 24-70L, 17-40L and EFS 10-22 are aimed at different applications, so cannot realy be compared.

What sort of shooting are you buying this lens for and what lenses do you have already?

[I Simonius]

I've tried two 10-22s and am not impressed by the quality

[mr.photoguy]

I would like to rent a 10-22 for a day, so I can view my own images, and get an idea of if I like the lens or not.

I figure a day in the city with the 10-22 walking around should really make up my mind.
I will do that before I purchase any other lenses.

[fatrat]

So the 10-22 will be good for landscapes then? would it be good for low light indoors?

Have you seen the 20D catalogue with the pics of England in it? most the pics were taken with the Ef-S 10 -22mm (might be just a Jap catalogue) even the 3 page pull out photo of a guy and dogs on a beach in wales was taken with the 10-22 all the pics look awesome dont know how people cant be impressed with that lens seeing as they got the shoots in the catalogue from it.

So i guess the 16 -35mm f2.8L would be better?? but here in Australia its like 3 times the price of the 10-22 (nearly) , is the Quality image really that much better to justify the price?

[Doom1701e]

Go for the 24-70 2.8L, you wont regret it.

[robertwgross]

You stated that you want to shoot landscapes and people. I suppose that everybody develops their own preference for focal lengths to use. Ultra-wide 10mm seems nice and wide for a landscape, possibly wider than I would want to use even on a 1.6 factor body. For landscapes, I never use anything wider than 20mm. For people, then something like 20mm is OK, but it is still awfully wide. I would go with something closer to 30-50mm.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

A bunch of eddies in the current of this discussion...

Very hard to single out each point so I'll just list some impressions

1. the 10-22mm is not an "L" lens but it's optics are very high quality, expensive "L" quality design.

2. Indoor low light shooting requires lenses with certain characteristics for best results. The 10-22mm certainly lacks these characteristics.

3. You should do more research into the tasks you have in mind and what aspects of lenses help with those specific tasks beofre trying to make this decision if you want to get it right the first time.

[jterlecki]

Very simply - if you want a lens with 107 degree coverage, no 17 - whatever, no 20 - whatever, no 16 - whatever will give you that with the 20D. The 10 - 22 lens is an expensive lens with a lot of engineering behind it. It is a high quality lens with 3 aspherical elements. I wouldn't think of offering an opinion on a lens that I have not personally used, but many do. I have this lens and find it to produce excellent photos, particularly at the low end of the focal length range.

Ultra wide-angle photography is without question, more difficult than most other types of photography - it requires more thought, more planning of the composition and more attention to detail and it is definitely not for everyone. You have to weigh what you want to shoot and what you want from a lens and make your decision based on that. Everything is a trade-off, particularly when you are talking about zoom lenses. At one time, I wouldn't think of using anything other than a prime lens. Now, well, I can't nor do I want to carry a bag full of lenses so I've accepted the tradeoff to zoom lenses. Photography is still an art and it is NOT simply about the equipment. Just remember, a red stripe on a lens does not necessarily a good photographer make.