Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 03 Sep 2014 (Wednesday) 21:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Full Frame Replacement for Canon 10-22

 
pkim1230
Senior Member
Avatar
746 posts
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Providence, RI
     
Sep 04, 2014 20:53 |  #16

I would Keep the 7d and 10-22. Also take a look at the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 very cheap with good reviews. Loving mine.



Gear | 6D, 550D, 1000D IR Modified, Samyang 24mm f/1.4, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, Canon 40mm f/2.8, Tamron 70-300mm VC f/4-5.6, iOptron SkyTracker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
snerd
Senior Member
Avatar
662 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 187
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Oklahoma
     
Sep 04, 2014 23:12 |  #17

I would also keep the 7D and 10-22........... it's what I did. Let your wife know who wears the pants in the family!

:cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bud ­ Spencer
Mostly Lurking
18 posts
Joined Mar 2012
     
Sep 05, 2014 00:37 as a reply to  @ snerd's post |  #18

Well, where to start ?
My bro used to get married recently, and I've had a not-so-small talk with the pro shooter, a nice female photog.
To her, a f/2.8 lens did not count as being fast glass... Yes, she was using two 5D3 cameras frequently.
If wedding photography is Your goal, skip all f/4 or variable aperture lenses.
Her cameras were equipped with a 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, ready in her bag a 35/1.4 and a 135/2. No zooms. Two giant flashlights saw no use.
She told me, the next lens she was after is the 24/1.4 Mk.2, but mostly for travel use.
---
This is not my point of view, just another Pro's opinion.
---
Wide angle zoom lenses suffer from widespread sample variation. Don't purchase such a lens off the peg, or the first used sample that crosses Your path. Ebay and craigslist are full of monday's models that change hands faster than You can say Jack Robinson.
---
The 16-35L Mk.1 and the 17-35L are much worse than the 16-35L2. Don't bother.
With Canon's current lineup, You're indeed better off using fast primes. Sigma Art comes to mind.
My personal experience (landscape photog) is, that larger sensors always yield better results than APS or smaller. That might be different for your intended purpose over all.
At the same time, I really hate hauling a heavy FF camera and big lenses to remote locations...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
madhatter04
Goldmember
1,930 posts
Likes: 51
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Southern California
     
Sep 05, 2014 00:57 |  #19

Loved the Tokina 16-28 but it really let me down when it came to do nighttime city shots for a few clients. Talk about flare. Rainbow rings around every single light source! Couldn't go wrong with it during the day but whenever a bright light source entered, particularly at night, forget it!


Designer // Art Director // Photographer
www.alexanderfitch.com (external link) | AlexFitchPhoto on Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hiketheplanet
Senior Member
Avatar
666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 14
Joined May 2013
     
Sep 05, 2014 00:59 as a reply to  @ Bud Spencer's post |  #20

What do you shoot? Many landscape photogs value a sharp, full frame corner to corner sharp, ultra wide zoom/prime above a faster aperture lens because they will be using a tripod 99% of the time. Is this how you used your 10-22? Is corner sharpness more valuable to you then an f/2.8 aperture? If you don't need f/2.8, and you're on a budget, the 17-40L will be perfectly capable. If you can stretch your budget, the new 16-35 f/4L IS, and if you NEED f/2.8, get the 16-35/2.8 (mk1 if budget, mk2 if money flying out your behind). Of course since none of these lenses are dirt cheap used or new, you might consider hanging on to your current setup. Yes, full-frame has advantages, but will you notice them? Is it worth it to get ride of a perfectly capable aps-c body and ef-s UWA lens, for one full frame UWA lens? Again, if selling your 7D and 10-22 is necessary to pay for the 5d3, then I think the 17-40L is your lens. It's a very capable lens.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Sep 05, 2014 19:00 |  #21

Get the 16-35mm F4 IS, it's the best wide angle zoom Canon has the moment.
But the 10-22mm will work just fine, it's soft in the corners on full frame but it's damn sharp in the centre.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GuitarDTO
Goldmember
1,857 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 474
Joined Jul 2012
     
Sep 05, 2014 19:32 |  #22

Do yourself a favor and save for the 16-35 F4 IS. It really is fantastic, sharp as a razor throughout.


Gear: 5D3, 135L, Sigma 35, 50 1.8 STM, 16-35 F/4L IS, 85/1.8, Fujifilm X100T
Flickr: DavioTheOne (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,806 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 872
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Sep 05, 2014 22:46 as a reply to  @ GuitarDTO's post |  #23

I always thought the 17-40 was equal to the 10-22 in almost all respects except weather sealing.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bms259
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
425 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 06, 2014 08:19 |  #24

GuitarDTO wrote in post #17138140 (external link)
Do yourself a favor and save for the 16-35 F4 IS. It really is fantastic, sharp as a razor throughout.

I still leaning away from this. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I'll want to have 2.8. It's more important to my kind of work that IS and sharpness.

I've decided between the 17-40 and older 16-35 2.8, depending on what kind of deals I can find when I decide to make the move.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bms259
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
425 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 10, 2014 12:58 |  #25

I'm still struggling to decide between the older 16-35 2.8 and the 17-40.I think I can get the 16-35 2.8 for about $925 (which seems expensive for a lens that old), or the 17-40 for between $500-600. I like the 17-40 for its size and cost...but the 16-35 for it's 2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Leigh
Member
135 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 34
Joined Apr 2003
Location: FLORIDA
     
Sep 10, 2014 14:15 |  #26

16-35 F4-L would be my choice.

Leigh




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CaliWalkabout
Senior Member
Avatar
337 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2010
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
     
Sep 10, 2014 14:33 |  #27

The 17-40 is a fine lens. It isn't flawless, but the corner sharpness issues aren't problems for many people. Pros who absolutely need that corner sharpness might need to get something more expensive, but for most the 17-40 is an upgrade over the 10-22.

If budget allows I would go for the 16-35/4. The 6D's high ISO performance is good enough so the speed advantage of a 2.8 isn't particularly compelling to me in a UWA.


6D, 17-40L, 24L II, 50L, 100L, 70-300L.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bms259
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
425 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 10, 2014 14:56 |  #28

Leigh wrote in post #17146448 (external link)
16-35 F4-L would be my choice.

Leigh

I'm staying away from the f4 IS because for the cost, I'd definitely rather have 2.8 than IS and sharper corners. If I primarily shot landscapes, that'd be my choice.

I'll be using this lens wide open to photograph people, events, weddings, etc or at f8 or higher for landscapes.

I'm pretty sure I'll happy with the image quality I'll get out of either the 16-35 2.8 i or the 17-40. Obviously I can't know for sure until I have try it out.

The smaller size and the lower cost makes the 17-40 a really solid option. It should perform just as well as my 10-22, and is probably the right replacement for my 10-22.

Now what I'm struggling through is deciding is the extra few hundred dollars for an older lens (but gaining a stop) will be worth it for me. I afraid I'll regret getting the 17-40...but I'm also hesitant to get the 16-35 for some reason....

I'm not considering the Tokina 16-28 2.8 because of the bulbous front that won't take my filters.

I'm also staying away from the 16-35 2.8L ii because of the filters and cost. One day I'll upgrade to it and the newer 24-70 2.8, but I just don't have the need for it right now. Maybe one day, but not now.

And I'm staying from the new 16-35 f4 because for what I shoot, I'd get more value out of 2.8 than the IS and sharpness.

Thanks for the input. It's giving me a lot to consider. I'll still take any insight I can get!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,136 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6197
Joined Sep 2007
     
Sep 10, 2014 16:22 |  #29

if you dont care about corners, might as well get the tamron 17-35. Gives you 2.8 on the wide end and goes to F4. Otherwise, just get the 17-40.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bms259
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
425 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2012
     
Sep 10, 2014 16:29 |  #30

Charlie wrote in post #17146624 (external link)
if you dont care about corners, might as well get the tamron 17-35. Gives you 2.8 on the wide end and goes to F4. Otherwise, just get the 17-40.

It's not that I don't care about corners....they're just not at the top of priority list. I'll look into it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,309 views & 0 likes for this thread
Full Frame Replacement for Canon 10-22
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is CoolGuy5Million
1039 guests, 302 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.