We are headed to Seattle and Vancouver. The widest lens I have is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.
Is the Canon 10-22 or 3rd party worth the investment?
Just thought I would ask.
Nick5 Goldmember  More info | Aug 04, 2009 22:23 | #1 We are headed to Seattle and Vancouver. The widest lens I have is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon PRO-300 Printer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
LightRules Return of the Jedi  9,911 posts Likes: 5 Joined Jun 2005 More info | Aug 04, 2009 22:42 | #2 Yes!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
speedracersong Senior Member 323 posts Joined Aug 2004 Location: san jose, ca More info | Aug 04, 2009 22:48 | #3 if you have a car, go here. Gasworks Park  HOSTED PHOTO please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Tawcan Goldmember  2,679 posts Joined Apr 2004 Location: Vancouver Canada More info | Aug 04, 2009 23:53 | #4 I think 17 would be wide enough. But you're the one that would determine that.    boblai.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 07, 2009 22:56 | #5 Today, I finally stopped putting off the decision of buying an Ultra Wide Lens. I took advantage of the Canon instant rebate and bought the Canon 10-22 f/ 3.5-4.5. Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon PRO-300 Printer
LOG IN TO REPLY |
mikeassk Goldmember  2,329 posts Likes: 3 Joined Aug 2006 Location: San Diego/ San Fran/ Berkeley More info | Aug 08, 2009 00:08 | #6 17mm is fairly wide for sure.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Naturalist Adrift on a lonely vast sea 5,768 posts Likes: 1250 Joined May 2007 More info | 17mm is fairly wide for sure. If you dont find it wide enough just stitch a couple shots!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
gsenthil Member 82 posts Joined Jun 2008 More info | Aug 08, 2009 02:10 | #8 Dont miss out Kerry Park and the shots from Saltys-Alki beach. I actually used the 70-200 @ 200 and did a panorama and got an awesome image! Canon 5Ds R / Canon T6i / 50 1.8 II STM / 17-40 F4L / 24-70 F2.8L Mark II / 70-200 F2.8L IS Mark II / 100-400 F3.5-5.6L Mark II / 580 EX II / 2x Yongnuo 560 Mark III / 7MDH
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Cyclop Cream of the Crop 6,899 posts Joined Jun 2007 More info | Aug 08, 2009 06:13 | #9 The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is a great versatile general purpose lens. For UWA territory, Canon 50D w/grip, Canon 7D, Mark II w/grip, Tokina UWA 11-16 2.8, Canon 17-55 2.8 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS, Canon 300 4 L IS, Canon 400 5.6 L, Canon 100 "macro" 2.8, Canon 60 "macro" 2.8, Canon Extender 1.4xII, Gitzo 3531S tripod w/Markins M20 ballhead, Gitzo GT2531EX tripod, Bogen-Manfrotto 681B monopod w/3232 head.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is griggt 1320 guests, 135 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
