40D with this lens, 5D with that??

Nick_C wrote in post #3874079
Barrel distortion is less on the 10-22, but im suprised you had higher vignetting, considering the 17-40 is around 0.55ev wideopen & the 10-22 is at a whopping 1.29ev wideopen.

Although vignetting is one problem that is so easily corrected, where as corner softness is something the 17-40 should have beat the 10-22 on, its borders are at 1872 f/8.0 where the 10-22 is only 1576 f/8.0 which is pretty soft.

You are quoting specs from photozone - they use a crop camera for their testing. The 17-40 does not perform as well on FF as compared to crop for both vignetting and edge softness.

jedwards wrote in post #3878201
You are quoting specs from photozone - they use a crop camera for their testing. The 17-40 does not perform as well on FF as compared to crop for both vignetting and edge softness.

True I forgot that, damn he really needs to get himself a FF camera to go with those tests

Ok a better test then, FF results of the 17-40L & the 10-22 on slrgear, the 17-40 when tested on a FF camera was still lower vignetting than the 10-22 on a crop with both set to the their widest zoom setting, but slightly worse on the 17-40 with both set to 22mm.

Nick_C wrote in post #3867451
....

I just know that if I had the 12-24 here, I would probably end up putting that lens on & leaving the 24-105 either at home or in the bag, then most of my images I sell would have been taken on a Sigma! .....

So you're saying the equipment used is more important than the image.

KAC

kenyc wrote in post #3879531
So you're saying the equipment used is more important than the image.

KAC

Of course the equipment used is important to the final image, otherwise we would all be going around with 18-55 kit lenses! I KNOW for a fact the 24-105L will produce better results in a variety of conditions over the 12-24 by the way I am using the lens.

Yes I wouldnt mind having a 12-24 for those single shots, BUT as I already pointed out, I simply use my 24-105L & take several shots of a landscape scene (zoomed in slightly), then when they are stitched I get a wider field than the 24mm can produce (not panoramic), about as wide if not wider than the 12mm (its variable by me) but the image is over 40mp & can be cropped & messed about with as I often have 40mp or even higher to work with on my landscapes

What im saying which seems to have got totally misunderstood, is that by buying the 12-24, I would be doubling up on what I already have! as I get wider out of my 24-105L by technique alone, the way im doing this may take a little more time, its not for everyone, but the results are far better than what I would get by simply buying a 12-24, I get as wide as I desire with no distortion.

Nick_C wrote in post #3879580
Of course the equipment used is important to the final image, otherwise we would all be going around with 18-55 kit lenses! I KNOW for a fact the 24-105L will produce better results in a variety of conditions over the 12-24 by the way I am using the lens.

Yes I wouldnt mind having a 12-24 for those single shots, BUT as I already pointed out, I simply use my 24-105L & take several shots of a landscape scene (zoomed in slightly), then when they are stitched I get a wider field than the 24mm can produce (not panoramic), about as wide if not wider than the 12mm (its variable by me) but the image is over 40mp & can be cropped & messed about with as I often have 40mp or even higher to work with on my landscapes

What im saying which seems to have got totally misunderstood, is that by buying the 12-24, I would be doubling up on what I already have! as I get wider out of my 24-105L by technique alone, the way im doing this may take a little more time, its not for everyone, but the results are far better than what I would get by simply buying a 12-24, I get as wide as I desire with no distortion.

Nah, you said it was MORE important.

KAC

kenyc wrote in post #3879607
Nah, you said it was MORE important.

KAC

Did I?

Nick_C wrote in post #3874079
Barrel distortion is less on the 10-22, but im suprised you had higher vignetting, considering the 17-40 is around 0.55ev wideopen & the 10-22 is at a whopping 1.29ev wideopen.

Although vignetting is one problem that is so easily corrected, where as corner softness is something the 17-40 should have beat the 10-22 on, its borders are at 1872 f/8.0 where the 10-22 is only 1576 f/8.0 which is pretty soft.

I had more vignetting with the 17-40 on the 5D than with the 10-22 on the 20D that is. On the 20D 17-40 gives no vignetting at all as it all misses the sensor, same goes for corner softening.

Someone may have already suggested this, but the 5D would make a lovely complement to your current lenses, particularly the 24-70. Keep the XT, and use it for the extra "reach" on your 70-200. No need to invest in a lens that you won't be able to mount on a FF or 1D body should you decide to go in that direction in the future.

I've got the 5D for wider stuff, and will likely be getting a 40D for the longer stuff.

BugEyes wrote in post #3898279
I had more vignetting with the 17-40 on the 5D than with the 10-22 on the 20D that is. On the 20D 17-40 gives no vignetting at all as it all misses the sensor, same goes for corner softening.

Very puzzling, I believe you but that also means all the respected tests online are wrong

JeffreyG wrote in post #3876574
I guess to me the f/3.5-4.5 is a lot closer to a constant f/4 lens than to a constant f/2.8...

Do you think you could eyeball the difference between f2.8 light and f3.5 light? It's doubtful, possible, but doubtful. However, I'd wager you could, without much of a problem, eyeball the difference between 16mm and 17mm of a given point of view.

Everyone suggesting that the OP should buy a 5D to take pics of her children playing and a couple of landscapes should be ashamed of themselves. Although on a gearhead forum like this one, it's not at all surprising, but it is nonetheless shameful.

Spending other people's money is a hobby of mine too, but shouldn't we at least try to give advice as though we are in the poster's shoes? Asking them to fork over an extra $1000+ for a millimeter of focal length is about as absurd as it gets.

If the OP gets serious about photography, there'll be plenty of time to play the diminishing returns game. Being on the wrong end of the cost/benefit ratio is something that's better suited for professionals, semi-pros and general fanatics with more money than sense.

Until she gets more serious, shouldn't she go for a bang-for-the-buck solution?

If you can't take absolutely fantastic landscapes pics with a 40D you're doing something wrong. If you can't take whiz-bang stills of children playing soccer with a 40D and her 70-200mm f2.8 IS, you've got no business spending $2500 on a camera body that'll make it more difficult to do so.

If you *must* get a $1000+ camera now, get a 40D. Spend the rest on glass and don't look back until you have more weight in lenses than you have children willing to help you lug them around.

YMMV

(And I must say, Karen, you have an exquisite taste in lenses so far.)

Dekka wrote in post #3898624
If you *must* get a $1000+ camera now, get a 40D. Spend the rest on glass and don't look back until you have more weight in lenses than you have children willing to help you lug them around.

Unless of course the entire collection are EF-S, forcing you to start all over again if or when the time comes that you decide to explore fullframe world.

The general rule if thats what you want to call it is:

Buy a 40D or similar cropped body if you are into sports or wildlife & use telephotos more than wideangle, or if you just fancy dabbling in everything.

You really only go fullframe if you are generally shooting wideangle for landscapes, or your a wedding photographer, the price of all this of course usually turns most casual users off, which is why cameras like a 40D are proving popular, they do a bit of everything.

Both cameras can be used for all these tasks, but certain tasks are better with the 5D, while other tasks are better suited to a 40D or similar.

Dekka wrote in post #3898624
Do you think you could eyeball the difference between f2.8 light and f3.5 light? It's doubtful, possible, but doubtful. However, I'd wager you could, without much of a problem, eyeball the difference between 16mm and 17mm of a given point of view.

Everyone suggesting that the OP should buy a 5D to take pics of her children playing and a couple of landscapes should be ashamed of themselves. Although on a gearhead forum like this one, it's not at all surprising, but it is nonetheless shameful.

Spending other people's money is a hobby of mine too, but shouldn't we at least try to give advice as though we are in the poster's shoes? Asking them to fork over an extra $1000+ for a millimeter of focal length is about as absurd as it gets.

If the OP gets serious about photography, there'll be plenty of time to play the diminishing returns game. Being on the wrong end of the cost/benefit ratio is something that's better suited for professionals, semi-pros and general fanatics with more money than sense.

Until she gets more serious, shouldn't she go for a bang-for-the-buck solution?

If you can't take absolutely fantastic landscapes pics with a 40D you're doing something wrong. If you can't take whiz-bang stills of children playing soccer with a 40D and her 70-200mm f2.8 IS, you've got no business spending $2500 on a camera body that'll make it more difficult to do so.

If you *must* get a $1000+ camera now, get a 40D. Spend the rest on glass and don't look back until you have more weight in lenses than you have children willing to help you lug them around.

YMMV

(And I must say, Karen, you have an exquisite taste in lenses so far.)

Thanks, Dekka. This is a very good and sensible post. I appreciate it.

Dont get me wrong, i love the 5d... and as ive said before id grab it to take a high detail shot and focal length if i had the choice, BUT i find the user experience to be very very similar between 40d and 5d. I find the VF to be 'as good' - my 5d isnt with me atm since getting the 40d and without them to compare i havent noticed the diff EXCEPT with 40D i can see the data at the bottom easier!

Is there an option of getting your 5d and keeping your xt for the soccer? 5d can track a target really well and i will be testing the 40d this weekend on horse polo cross.

Hard choice... but the 40D is a serious upgrade from the xti (i just tried a 400d) and its a whole different league. Im building a 1.6x kit and FF kit with EF only lenses for dual use... harder to do but worth it for me. My worst case scenario is 1 ef-s lens being the 10-22 canon but im covered FF here anyways with the 17-40.

I agree with Dekka... i think this is one of the better posts ive read here... if i had a choice between 40d and 1 new lens or 5d id find it tough but i love new lenses