[ecommerce813]

Got it--thanks I'm broke!

 

[laxx]

I think 10-22 + 24-105 would be great if that's the type of shooting you do.

I myself would rarely shoot anything below 20, so I plan to get the 17-55 IS lense sometime in the near future. I usually have the 28-75 on and use the 70-200 whenever the weather outside permits.

I don't know what to buy myself though, I want a few more lenses, but at the same time I want to get into speakers. Oh where should my money go...

 

[lan]

If you don't shoot telephoto, 24-105 is the perfect next lens after 10-22 to fill in the range. The question is do you need low light or portrait stuff (or something with more bokeh). Then the 50 1.8 is a nice cheap choice.

My favorite lenses are 70-200 f/2.8 and 35mm f/1.4. I hear the 10-22 and 17-55 IS are nice but I won't commit to use EFS lenses.

 

[azt33]

Thanks everyone, I am more or less settled on the 10-22 and 24-105 combo, if I feel it doesn't cover enough I can always get a 70-200 again. And Ian, I already have the nifty fifty (50 f/1.8), it's a fun lens for the price

 

[brotherlen]

Favorite lens would have to be the 24-70L 2.8 , I'll probably get something wider in the coming year. Haven't gotten up to try and trade it for the 24-105L IS yet, maybe I should?

 

[lan]

I think the 24-70 has more contrast and has better colors. If you need the IS or more range or greater depth of field or weather sealing, 24-105 is a good choice. Being 2.8, your autofocus is also better.

 

[ecommerce813]

Quote:

Originally Posted by I'm broke /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm in San Diego! It'd be nice to see..

Here you go I'm broke. Turns out I didn't use my 24 TSE all that much in San Diego. This one is taken with the 24-70. Sorry about the dirty sensor, but I didn't feel like "healing brush" the entire sky.

 

[I'm broke]

^Can't see it. You may have to upload it to a hosting site like imageshack or flickr instead of uploading using head-fi's server.

 

[azt33]

OK, I am starting to doubt again. I just sold my 70-200mm because it didn't get any use at all. I was pretty set on getting the 10-22mm, because I wanted to get a UWA. But the person that bought the 70-200mm, had a 17-40mm with him, and I was able to take a few shots. They are amazingly sharp! Pricewise, they are almost equal. This is where the doubting starts. The 17-40mm is a very nice lens, plus it is an 'L'-lens. With an eye on the future (EF vs. EF-S), I would say the 17-40 mm would be better, but because of the crop factor, I am not 100% sure yet.

So again, I am asking your advice

Is the 17-40mm wide enough to shoot landscapes? Or should I stop looking at other lenses and just pick up the 10-22mm right now? Argh, so many choices!

 

[raptor84]

My 17-40 has been my kit replacement (i didnt get the kit anyway) due to its pretty useful focal range on a crop body. If you do upgrade to a FF sensor in future I'd invest in EF lenses now so you wont have to change out your ef-s when you do.

I rarely take landscapes though and use this lens for ym walkabout/events coverage. I do mount it on my film body from time to time though.

 

[I'm broke]

When looking for a kit replacement, I bought the 17-40 L and kept it for a month.

The f/4 is not wide enough of an aperture for me. If I had an external flash, I may have used it more. I exchanged it and put out a little more $$ for the 17-55 IS. The f/2.8 + IS is great! I'm not planning on upgrading to FF.. and even if I do, I don't see myself getting rid of my XTi. It would make a great back up and good for telephoto considering the crop factor.

That being said, the 10-22 is a great lens and sometimes I wish I would have sprung for it instead of the 17-55 IS simply because it's been touted as a "must have" lens.

Rent one and try it out! I've rented from lensrentals a few times and my experiences have been great!

 

[azt33]

Could someone help me in understanding the APS-C sensor and the cropfactor that comes with it? I always thought that both EF and EF-S lenses were multiplied by 1.6, but now I read on another forum that this is only for EF lenses, not for EF-S lenses. Is this true?

(Can I just say that this is getting a bit confusing

)

 

[AdamP88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by azt33 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could someone help me in understanding the APS-C sensor and the cropfactor that comes with it? I always thought that both EF and EF-S lenses were multiplied by 1.6, but now I read on another forum that this is only for EF lenses, not for EF-S lenses. Is this true? (Can I just say that this is getting a bit confusing )

Nope, it's for both.

Otherwise the 10-22mm would be a 6.25-13.75mm lens in actuality with a field of view so wide you wouldn't be able to take a shot that didn't end up having you in it.

 

[ecommerce813]

Quote:

Originally Posted by azt33 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could someone help me in understanding the APS-C sensor and the cropfactor that comes with it? I always thought that both EF and EF-S lenses were multiplied by 1.6, but now I read on another forum that this is only for EF lenses, not for EF-S lenses. Is this true? (Can I just say that this is getting a bit confusing )

Crop factor is dependent on the sensor and is independent of the lens. EFS lenses differ from EF lenses in that they can only be used on the 1.6x crop factor camera bodies (without modding that is). I think they would cause vignetting on a 1.3x or FF camera and/or might have problems with the mirror assembly hitting the lens (can't remember though).

 

[agile_one]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecommerce813 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Crop factor is dependent on the sensor and is independent of the lens. EFS lenses differ from EF lenses in that they can only be used on the 1.6x crop factor camera bodies (without modding that is). I think they would cause vignetting on a 1.3x or FF camera and/or might have problems with the mirror assembly hitting the lens (can't remember though).

Yes, this is my understanding as well - that the Crop factor is derived from the physical size of the image sensor (smaller vs full frame), and that the EF S lens line has both smaller diameter glass, and that the mirror assembly in a FF camera would hit the rear lens elements because they are closer to the mount then in EF lenses.

Wikipedia actually has a decent article.

I have a 40D body, and recently added the 10-22mm EF S. The 10-22 is an outstanding lens, and once it is mounted, it stays on my camera for a long time, as I consistently find more use for it. It is great for people and groups (just don't get too close

), does beautifull landscapes and scenes, and produces sharp images with beautiful color saturation.