OMG 10-22 Prices !!!

NeutronBoy wrote in post #7960212
I don't see why it would. I think it's short sighted to save a few bucks and buy a lens you will not be happy with. Many people are reporting increased flaring on this site and I am choosing to go with that. I have learned that when you buy cheap, you get cheap. Why should I 'deal with it' when I don't have to by making a smarter choice (IMHO)?

p.s. this is not a flame on others who have decided differntly. You have to keep yourself happy when its all said and done.

I think people put too much into a lens, because of the picture archive that is on here. I definitely agree that good glass is one of the best choices you can ever make; however, every lens you buy can't always have a "red ring or red ring quality" around it. I fell into the same trap when all my gear was L. I sold the 24-70, because it just didn't meet my needs and I bought the Sigma 50 1.4 and pocketed the rest.

Good glass goes a long way, but if you haven't started getting familiar with a PP program, then you really should. Photoshop can't save all the glass out there, but if you know how to use your glass it does wonders.

Sometimes, I really wish I would have kept my 18-55 and 28-135, just because I probably needed to use them longer. There's a lot of subpar glass out there, but when it's at f/8, it can make some really nice pics.

weezerfan84 wrote in post #7962102
I think people put too much into a lens, because of the picture archive that is on here. I definitely agree that good glass is one of the best choices you can ever make; however, every lens you buy can't always have a "red ring or red ring quality" around it. I fell into the same trap when all my gear was L. I sold the 24-70, because it just didn't meet my needs and I bought the Sigma 50 1.4 and pocketed the rest.

Good glass goes a long way, but if you haven't started getting familiar with a PP program, then you really should. Photoshop can't save all the glass out there, but if you know how to use your glass it does wonders.

Sometimes, I really wish I would have kept my 18-55 and 28-135, just because I probably needed to use them longer. There's a lot of subpar glass out there, but when it's at f/8, it can make some really nice pics.

Yup, I agree. I still want L though!! I did have a bad experience with a poor lens (Tamron 70-300) and swore I would never waste my $$ that way ever again. So, I decided I would do Canon all the way and buy their better quality lenses (i.e. not their cheapies). I do find myself being lured away by the f2.8 offerrings like the Tokina.

After using PS Elements for a year or so, I took the plunge and bought CS4 & LR. It's crazy how much can be done.

I would have sold the 17-40L, but I just like this lens on my 40D. I don't mind f/4, since indoors I have it paired with my flash. I even use my flash a lot of the time for my Sigma 1.4 indoors. I've even looked at the 50-250, as a reach lens, but I don't know yet. I probably should look through the lens archive for more pictures. If it won't be that then it will end up being the 70-200 F/4 non IS, since I do really enjoy the constant F/4.

I remember when I got it for, I believe $630 with a $60 rebate a year or two ago

NeutronBoy wrote in post #7952471
I have because the lower price, the hefty build and the f2.8 really look great. But after reading some reviews on POTN, the lens flare and CA issues really worry me.

no problems with mine