EF-S 10-22 and 70-200 f4.0 or 70-200 f2.8?

[SimonBl]

Hi all,

I have (depending on a credit card extension :o) the opportunity to get a colleague to bring back from the US a 10-22 and a 70-200L f4.0 OR a 70-200L f2.8 on its own :rolleyes:. Getting both the 10-22 and the f2.8 is out of the question :cry:.

I am leaning towards getting both and then potentially upgrading to the f2.8 later (the resale of the f4.0 locally may actually cover its cost). I only have the kit lens and the 50mm mkII at the moment.

I will also get the 580EX as well, come what may with the lens decision.

I guess I am just after some reassuring noises that I'm making the right decision here :). I want the 10-22 for landscapes particularly in our spectacular north-west.

Why not buy locally? As any Aussie will tell you, the prices here suck. The 70-200L f4.0 is half the price (no exaggeration) from the US. The 10-22 isn't as bad, but still worth doing. The 580 is about AU$200 cheaper. So, what do you reckon?

Cheers,

Simon....

[mdr]

Go for the 10-22mm and the 70-200mm f4. You can probably live without the IS and 1 stop faster lens much easier, than not having the 10-22mm, especially if landscapes are one of your subjects.

[cfcRebel]

Hi Simon,
if u shoot alot in low light, or indoor, according to most people here, f2.8L is the choice. I'm an outdoor person, so the f4L would be good enough for me. ;)

[SimonBl]

Go for the 10-22mm and the 70-200mm f4. You can probably live without the IS and 1 stop faster lens much easier, than not having the 10-22mm, especially if landscapes are one of your subjects.

Thanks Marc, appreciate the quick response :D. This is the type of thing I am dying to shoot with a good wide angle lens:

http://www.pbase.com/simonb/image/35577795/large.jpg

Cheers,

Simon....

[SimonBl]

Hi Simon,
if u shoot alot in low light, or indoor, according to most people here, f2.8L is the choice. I'm an outdoor person, so the f4L would be good enough for me. ;)

cfcRebel, I am mainly an outdoor person too, although I need to do more indoor type stuff (but not with a 70-200) so will stick with the 50mm for now.

Cheers,

Simon....

[mdr]

Then it should be a no brainer: buy the two lenses!

[MarkH]

This is the type of thing I am dying to shoot with a good wide angle lens:


I am not quite sure why you are asking your original question, the answer seems obvious!

Get the 2 lenses, all discussion here about the 70-200 f4L suggests that this is an excellent lens, much lighter than the f2.8 and just as sharp. If you don't need a long lens with f2.8 than there is no reason not to get the f4L. You could also get a 1.4x teleconverter later if you need more tele - you'll still have autofocus with the resulting f5.6.

[JulianL]

I think I'd go with the 17-40mm f/4L lens. It's wide enough IMO to do some landscape photography. Certainly to do what you posted above I'd think.

[SimonBl]

I think I'd go with the 17-40mm f/4L lens. It's wide enough IMO to do some landscape photography. Certainly to do what you posted above I'd think.

JulianL, thanks for adding to the mix and confusing me more :D. Why the 17-40mm f/4L over the 10-22mm? Isn't your suggestions zoom range rather close to the 17-85 kit (at the wide angle end, anyway)? Is the the fact that the 10-22 isn't an 'L' and is EF-S mount?

The camera I've come from had a zoom range of 35-280mm 35mm equivilent, so I guess I'm more wide than the example I showed.

I'm a 35mm lens virgin, so really am flying a little blind here (the 50mm MKII was a no-brainer).

Simon....

[SimonBl]

I am not quite sure why you are asking your original question, the answer seems obvious!

Exactly ;) That's why I am staying up late and getting up early doing all this research! I wish I could find someone in my locality with a 10-22mm.

Thanks for your comments and I had thought about the tele-converter too (later, I mean).

Simon....

[Skip Souza]

It looks like you have already made the right decision for the 10-22 and the f/4. Now all you are looking for is reassuring noises to help you sleep.

You go guy!:lol:

Right on!:cool:

Good choice!:)

Have fun!:lol:

Rest easy!:lol:

Wish I'd done that!:p

Sleep well!:rolleyes:

Brought to you by your friendly Canon support team in America.:D

[SimonBl]

Brought to you by your friendly Canon support team in America.:D

Thanks Skip. This forum sure is friendly :o. Now to ring the bank :rolleyes:.

Simon....

[JulianL]

JulianL, thanks for adding to the mix and confusing me more :D. Why the 17-40mm f/4L over the 10-22mm? Isn't your suggestions zoom range rather close to the 17-85 kit (at the wide angle end, anyway)? Is the the fact that the 10-22 isn't an 'L' and is EF-S mount?

The camera I've come from had a zoom range of 35-280mm 35mm equivilent, so I guess I'm more wide than the example I showed.

I'm a 35mm lens virgin, so really am flying a little blind here (the 50mm MKII was a no-brainer).

Simon....

Sorry, I was confusing that lens with the $600 EF-S 17-85 lens that gets mixed reviews. While I have no experience with this lens, if you really want wide angle photography it looks like the 10-22 would be a great lens to buy.

I am kind of partial to the L series glass though. :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

GET THE 10-22 AND THE 70-200 F/4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! haha, best choice man, best choice. Wish I could do the same.

[rfreschner]

Go for the 10-22 and 70-200 f4 - like you said you can always get the f2.8 later.

[mdm]

What you have no brain, errr?

[picture-this]

Both are great landscape lenses, that should be sitting on tripods so the F4 won't be a problem for you, the 2.8 IS does make it a great all around lens but don't borrow money just to get it.

[Adam Hicks]

And you'll get your money back on the F4 no problem when you decide to upgrade it. BUT the 10-22 is just a great lens. It's images are L sharp considering it's ultra wide angle nature but it's not quite as heavy so it's a little easier to deal with.

Adam

[SimonBl]

Woohoo, my application was approved today for the full amount requested (I had to ring them to find out why it was taking so long, guess they mislaid it). The good news is that although I will be paying by CC, I will be cashing in some leave soon which will pay for it in full.

I'll be ordering from B&H, so will need to go through their verification procedure and then ship to LA... I emailed them, asking if there was any way to speed it up (like pre-registering the shipping address with the CC company), but no response as yet.

My work associate is heading for LA in the first week of June, so I will be eagerly awaiting my 10-22mm, the 70-200mm L f/4 and the 580EX on his return to Perth! :D :D :D

Bring it on!

Simon....

[blue_max]

All good choices.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, both wide angle lenses mentioned are comparible in terms of image quality. However, the 17-40L is weather sealed, which may be helpful in the great outdoors.

I am sure you have looked at the sample shots, but perhaps the ultra wide appearance may become a little overworked if it were your only wide angle lens. The 17-40 would give you a useable lens nearer 'normal' if you vary your shooting. In my opinion, the very wide lenses work best with interest close up, which is not always available.

The 17-40L also has a few discounts on it at the moment (did I read that Dell do it cheap?).

You are looking at lenses that will all be great, so don't stress it!

What a lovely choice.

Graham

[SimonBl]

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, both wide angle lenses mentioned are comparible in terms of image quality. However, the 17-40L is weather sealed, which may be helpful in the great outdoors.


Hi Graham, I may have forgotten to mention I have the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens, which I am reasonably happy with. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 MKII.

The 17-40L may be a very nice lens, but an extra $679.95 (ex-B&H) is out of the question :o.

Maybe next year :lol: Thanks for your comments anyway. Oh, by the way, I live in Perth, Western Australia... Weather sealing isn't exactly high on the priority list! Hehe.

Simon....

[blue_max]

Hi Graham, I may have forgotten to mention I have the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens, which I am reasonably happy with. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 MKII.

The 17-40L may be a very nice lens, but an extra $679.95 (ex-B&H) is out of the question :o.

Maybe next year :lol: Thanks for your comments anyway. Oh, by the way, I live in Perth, Western Australia... Weather sealing isn't exactly high on the priority list! Hehe.

Simon....

You did mention the kit lens, but I guessed if you were out and about, you may prefer to travel light (so you could raise a little by selling the other 1/2 perhaps).

I am shocked :eek: that you mention the price – in the UK the 10-22 is actually more expensive than the 17-40L. You don't think I mean the 16-35 do you? (B&H 10-22 $799.99/17-40 $654 which is cheaper – the 16-35 is $1300ish)

I did guess your location, but it is dust and maybe salt air that is the enemy, rather than rain (and who would take it out in the rain?). I'm in London and it's NOT raining! (but looks like it might).

Looks like you have considered everything now – so you can guarantee you will be pleased and it will be right for you.

Bet you can't wait.

Graham

[condyk]

You could also really blow the budget and buy an expensive and very popular lens in the US and then as soon as it lands sell it for a decent profit. Maybe you could then afford them both, easy second hand anyway!

[SimonBl]

I am shocked :eek: that you mention the price – in the UK the 10-22 is actually more expensive than the 17-40L. You don't think I mean the 16-35 do you? (B&H 10-22 $799.99/17-40 $654 which is cheaper – the 16-35 is $1300ish)

I didn't compare against the 10-22 price, I must admit, just as an additional cost. I have just heard so many good things about the 10-22 and we are blessed with the wide open spaces here, so it seems so logical. I may be evil and go in to a camera shop locally and see if they'll let me have a play with it (the lens!). If they come close to the US price, I will even buy it (but the won't / can't).

I did guess your location, but it is dust and maybe salt air that is the enemy, rather than rain (and who would take it out in the rain?). I'm in London and it's NOT raining! (but looks like it might).

It's almost the middle of summer and it's STILL raining? :-) I was there in Nov the year before last and it was soooo dreary, don't know how you bear it.

Salt? nah, won't be trying that one out! Dust? Yup, a possibility, but no worse than my old P&S. As I said, maybe the next one.

Bet you can't wait.

You're right :D

Thanks,

Simon....

[SimonBl]

You could also really blow the budget and buy an expensive and very popular lens in the US and then as soon as it lands sell it for a decent profit. Maybe you could then afford them both, easy second hand anyway!

I could, yes. I am SURE I could cover the cost, yes. But... I'm damned nervous enough at plonking down AU$2000 and UPS'ing to an unknown person to await collection as it is :rolleyes:.

So, maybe next time I go to the US, I will bring back a spare!

Simon....

[SimonBl]

Just in case anyone's interested, I went in to a camera shop in central Perth today to give local dealers one last chance before I order my gear via the US. Here was the result (all in approx Oz $'s):

EF-S 10-22
B&H price: $1050 Best shop price: $1250

70-200L f/4
B&H price: $762 Best shop price: $1400+

580EX
B&H price: $513 Best shop price: $700+ ($513 below their buy)

Now, if I was JUST buying the 10-22, I'd probably buy it from them at the price they offered me. Worth the extra to a) support locally and b) avoid the hassles, but as I will need to get the others anyway.... No contest.

By the way:

1.00 AUD = 0.760803 USD

Simon....