OI ...fish

[gus]

You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's (http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_1740_f4_l) & man thats a bloody nice lens. Help me here mate...im close to pulling the trigger on either lens.

[Michiel de Brieder]

You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's (http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_1740_f4_l) & man thats a bloody nice lens. Help me here mate...im close to pulling the trigger on either lens. it IS a bloody nice lens :D I'd say if you don't need the 10-16mm range then spring for the 17-40. It is a well established L lens with great build quality and very appealing characteristics! The only one I'd be happy to trade it in for is the 16-35 :lol

[gus]

it IS a bloody nice lens
Wha chew talkin' bout willis ? ..........the 17-40 or the 10-22 ?

[Michiel de Brieder]

Wha chew talkin' bout willis ? ..........the 17-40 or the 10-22 ? The 17-40! I got that one before I got an EF-S mount camera :D wouldn't change to a 10-22 though.. I can see myself in the future with a full frame camera :lol

[Andy]

The 17-40! I got that one before I got an EF-S mount camera :D wouldn't change to a 10-22 though.. I can see myself in the future with a full frame camera :lol

there's not questioning the quality of the 17-40L 'gus.

check out www.starvingphotographer.com mahesh shoots almost exclusively with that lens, stopped down to f/8 or f/11.

at equal focal lengths, the 17-40 will kick the 10-22's arse.

one is super wide zoom one is ultra wide zoom.

17-40 is equiv to 27mm-64mm and the 10-22 is equiv to 16-35mm

still, the 10-22 is a great lens for sweeping landscapes.
and, so is the 17-40

have i helped? :lol3

[Seamus]

You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's (http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_1740_f4_l) & man thats a bloody nice lens. Help me here mate...im close to pulling the trigger on either lens.
The 17-40 is imho a better buy. It will take good landscapes and you can use it as a walkaround lens. I remember some of your posts showing pics of the streets around your house. The 17-40 would be perfect for these. I think the 10-22 is a great lens but it is specialised. They are the same price so, again imho, use your kit lens for a week and check how many shots are at 18-22.


I would put the 10-22 on your list, I just wouldn't buy it before the 17-40.

I hope this helps, I don't want to muddy the waters for you.

Shay.

[gus]

have i helped? :lol3
:humungus this is a bad bad sickness isnt it ? You all laughing 'eh ?

[Andy]

:humungus this is a bad bad sickness isnt it ? You all laughing 'eh ?

yep. becuase after you buy the 17-40, then you get the 10-22 and then you decide you want fast wide for indoor shooting, or handheld dawn/dusk shooitng, and so you buy the 24L ($1100) or the 35L ($1100) or both and then ditch the 17-40 which, will pay for 1/2 of one of those new fast primes.

sick, sick, sick.

[DoctorIt]

i agree with all the above, both are great lenses, but I'd buy the 17-40 first. Still have a hard time believing the EFS quality is up to L quality. :dunno

[DavidTO]

Gus,

I'm no expert, but...

I'd ignore everything Andy says about buying equipment. That guy hunts down rare lenses, buys them and then sells them before they've even graced his doorstep. He's a buying freak, and you'll soon be in the poorhouse if you follow his advice.

Oh, and another thing I'm no expert on is lenses, but I have the 17-40 and I love it. On the 20D. That and the 70-200 f4L. Another great buy for a lens. Of course, you'da known that if wxwax hadn't shamed me into taking it out of my sig....

;)

[marlof]

Of course, you'da known that if wxwax hadn't shamed me into taking it out of my sig.... Well, we still know, and even more.... You dislike that 420EX (http://www.dgrin.com/member.php?userid=552)? Or is there another reason your dream goodie is a 580EX? ;)

[wxwax]

Gus,

I'm no expert, but...

I'd ignore everything Andy says about buying equipment. That guy hunts down rare lenses, buys them and then sells them before they've even graced his doorstep. He's a buying freak, and you'll soon be in the poorhouse if you follow his advice.

Oh, and another thing I'm no expert on is lenses, but I have the 17-40 and I love it. On the 20D. That and the 70-200 f4L. Another great buy for a lens. Of course, you'da known that if wxwax hadn't shamed me into taking it out of my sig....

;)

:tiptoe



:lol3

[wxwax]

WRT buying lenses, I'll say one thing: you'll willingly trade your slower lens for a faster lens. But you'll rarely trade your faster lens for a slower lens. Speed is king.

[pathfinder]

Gus,

I'm no expert, but...

I'd ignore everything Andy says about buying equipment. That guy hunts down rare lenses, buys them and then sells them before they've even graced his doorstep. He's a buying freak, and you'll soon be in the poorhouse if you follow his advice.

Oh, and another thing I'm no expert on is lenses, but I have the 17-40 and I love it. On the 20D. That and the 70-200 f4L. Another great buy for a lens. Of course, you'da known that if wxwax hadn't shamed me into taking it out of my sig....

;)
:lol4:lol4:lol4

[pathfinder]

WRT buying lenses, I'll say one thing: you'll willingly trade your slower lens for a faster lens. But you'll rarely trade your faster lens for a slower lens. Speed is king.

Absolutely. When you compare the view, side by side, the faster lenses win hands down. But they are heavier physically and fiscally:D:):

[Andy]

Absolutely. When you compare the view, side by side, the faster lenses win hands down. But they are heavier physically and fiscally:D:):

but, the results are way worth it, imo.

that said, i have seen *stellar* performance from the 17-40L... www.starvingphotographer.com again i link to mahesh's site, but his results are really good.

the 17-40, stopped down to f/8, f/11, performs really really good. hard to tell the difference between this lens and the 16-35 at equiv f/stops in the f/8 range. really. so, the faster glass, primes, and the 16-35, make good sense if one wishes to *als0* use these lenses in handholding situations, situationals, street work, or other "grab" shot stuff (think about a family celebration, indoors...)

[Nikolai]

but, the results are way worth it, imo.

that said, i have seen *stellar* performance from the 17-40L... www.starvingphotographer.com (http://www.starvingphotographer.com/) again i link to mahesh's site, but his results are really good.

Very impressive pictures!

[wxwax]

Very impressive pictures!
I get depressed every time Andy links to his galleries. :cry

[fish]

You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's (http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_1740_f4_l) & man thats a bloody nice lens. Help me here mate...im close to pulling the trigger on either lens.

I had a 17-40/4 and sold it to ginger because I couldn't make it sing. Got the 10-22 and LOVE it. If they made the 10-22 just a little heavier and non EF-S, I'm sure it would be an L. Since you got a 20D, why not take advantage of the widest lens available for it?

http://coyfish.smugmug.com/photos/15466217-L.jpg

[DavidTO]

Well, we still know, and even more.... You dislike that 420EX (http://www.dgrin.com/member.php?userid=552)? Or is there another reason your dream goodie is a 580EX? ;)

I want a multi-flash setup.

[Seamus]

I had a 17-40/4 and sold it to ginger because I couldn't make it sing. Got the 10-22 and LOVE it. If they made the 10-22 just a little heavier and non EF-S, I'm sure it would be an L. Since you got a 20D, why not take advantage of the widest lens available for it?

http://coyfish.smugmug.com/photos/15466217-L.jpg
you still have your 24-70L though. You have an L quality lens for general, day to day, photography. That's the point I'm trying to make (in my usual, incoherent,mumbling way:wink ). For Gus, the 17-40 gives him wide angle photos + a good walkaround lens. If / when he gets a 24-70 he can sell the 17-40 and get the 10-22.

I will get the 10-22 at some stage. It's just down a bit in the list behind the 400 5.6.

Shay.

[pathfinder]

but, the results are way worth it, imo.

that said, i have seen *stellar* performance from the 17-40L... www.starvingphotographer.com (http://www.starvingphotographer.com) again i link to mahesh's site, but his results are really good.

the 17-40, stopped down to f/8, f/11, performs really really good. hard to tell the difference between this lens and the 16-35 at equiv f/stops in the f/8 range. really. so, the faster glass, primes, and the 16-35, make good sense if one wishes to *als0* use these lenses in handholding situations, situationals, street work, or other "grab" shot stuff (think about a family celebration, indoors...)
I looked at his site - lovely images, almost serene in their simplicity. His lanscapes are elegant in their simplicity and purity. But they weren't all captured with a 17-40, unless they are composites. His suns and moons are vastly larger than they would appear shot with a 17-40. I think they were captured with a longer lens and then added in PS.

He creates beautiful images - I love their extreme simplification - reminds me to remove more stuff from my own pictures -

[gus]

Gus,

I'm no expert, but...

I'd ignore everything Andy says about buying equipment. That guy hunts down rare lenses, buys them and then sells them before they've even graced his doorstep. He's a buying freak, and you'll soon be in the poorhouse if you follow his advice.

Oh, and another thing I'm no expert on is lenses, but I have the 17-40 and I love it. On the 20D. That and the 70-200 f4L. Another great buy for a lens. Of course, you'da known that if wxwax hadn't shamed me into taking it out of my sig....

;)Dont worry mate...ive had this bloke pinned for a long time now. I recon i could sell him a dead roo on the side of the road as long as i told him it was fast yesterday.

[gus]

Tks for the feedback here ...i wasnt expecting so much. Im really just after quality ..bad OOF shots i have in the thousands.

I want crisp this time round !

[Andy]

Dont worry mate...ive had this bloke pinned for a long time now. I recon i could sell him a dead roo on the side of the road as long as i told him it was fast yesterday.

i already have a dead roo - true enough - it was given to me as a gift from an ozzie friend i shot a kpotd for :D

[Sam]

You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's (http://www.pbase.com/sheila/canon_1740_f4_l) & man thats a bloody nice lens. Help me here mate...im close to pulling the trigger on either lens.
I guess I'm behind the curve here. Have you bought a camera yet? If so which one?

Buy the 17-40, you will not be dissapointed!

Here is a shot at 17 mm to give you an idea of coverage. Photo taken by mere mortal.

Sam

[gus]

I guess I'm behind the curve here. Have you bought a camera yet? If so which one?

Buy the 17-40, you will not be dissapointed!

Here is a shot at 17 mm to give you an idea of coverage. Photo taken by mere mortal.

SamI threw deposit on a 20D sam...I really dont care what lens's i use as long as they are sharp. Im not going to pay for blurry photos. I like the samples i find with the 17-40.

There will be a full size sensor out in a year or 3 for the commoners i recon.

[gus]

there's not questioning the quality of the 17-40L 'gus.

17-40L

Retails here for about $1450 0zzie clams... $1150 USD !! Hey...i have to use my credit up on a lens of some sort & thats about the cheapest thing in the shop............. of substance anyway :cry :cry :cry

Nice gallery BTW...i keep going back to look at it. Jesus i would stop shooting if i could do that.

[Andy]

17-40L

Retails here for about $1450 0zzie clams... $1150 USD !! Hey...i have to use my credit up on a lens of some sort & thats about the cheapest thing in the shop............. of substance anyway :cry :cry :cry

Nice gallery BTW...i keep going back to look at it. Jesus i would stop shooting if i could do that.

2/3s less in the u.s. mate, why not buy when yer over here in a month.5 ?

in the meantime, use the kitty lens.

if you need help with any purchases, holler, i'll be glad to help.

[gus]

2/3s less in the u.s. mate, why not buy when yer over here in a month.5 ?

in the meantime, use the kitty lens.

if you need help with any purchases, holler, i'll be glad to help.
Because i have $1100 0z credit sitting in a camera shop waiting for me...got to use it on a lens of some description.

Draw the light away from the 135 f/2 will you....i cant stop looking at it.

[DoctorIt]

Because i have $1100 0z credit sitting in a camera shop waiting for me...got to use it on a lens of some description.

Draw the light away from the 135 f/2 will you....i cant stop looking at it.why are you so hard up for the 135? A prime in that range doesn't strike me as too useful. but what do I know... :dunno

I guess I'd get a good wide-standard zoom before I got a 135mm prime. Something i'd be more apt to use everyday. Don't think I'd use that prime everyday.

[gus]

why are you so hard up for the 135? A prime in that range doesn't strike me as too useful. but what do I know... :dunno

I guess I'd get a good wide-standard zoom before I got a 135mm prime. Something i'd be more apt to use everyday. Don't think I'd use that prime everyday.To me zooms are fuzzy in comparrison to the primes (54875145 hours searching on the net)...maybe im mad but im not going into this for stuff that i think is 2nd rate. Anyone can bash me to death that the canon 70-200 is sharp but when you look at the stuff from the 'real good guys' using primes...the primes leave them standing.

But...we are all different. Imagine if we all had the same gear & took the same shots ? The forum would end up like a bunch of swingers in a hot tub...always the same outcome.

[Andy]

The forum would end up like a bunch of swingers in a hot tub...always the same outcome.

:lol3 :lol3

get the 135mm a swweet lens.
love your attitude, get the best now, you'll end up there anyhow :deal

[DoctorIt]

To me zooms are fuzzy in comparrison to the primes (54875145 hours searching on the net)...maybe im mad but im not going into this for stuff that i think is 2nd rate. Anyone can bash me to death that the canon 70-200 is sharp but when you look at the stuff from the 'real good guys' using primes...the primes leave them standing.

But...we are all different. Imagine if we all had the same gear & took the same shots ? The forum would end up like a bunch of swingers in a hot tub...always the same outcome.:lol3 point well taken.

[Sam]

I threw deposit on a 20D sam...I really dont care what lens's i use as long as they are sharp. Im not going to pay for blurry photos. I like the samples i find with the 17-40.

There will be a full size sensor out in a year or 3 for the commoners i recon.
Your gona love the 20D. I might just have one myself before the Yosemite event. Need to pay off the 70-200 L 2.8 first. :D If you like primes, don't ignore the lowly 50 mm 1.8. Cheap to buy, great quality. It's the damn lens that got me addicted to the L stuff. :):

Sam

[pathfinder]

To me zooms are fuzzy in comparrison to the primes (54875145 hours searching on the net)...maybe im mad but im not going into this for stuff that i think is 2nd rate. Anyone can bash me to death that the canon 70-200 is sharp but when you look at the stuff from the 'real good guys' using primes...the primes leave them standing.

But...we are all different. Imagine if we all had the same gear & took the same shots ? The forum would end up like a bunch of swingers in a hot tub...always the same outcome.


If you're going to stick to primes 'gus - and there are certainly those of use who admire that kind of character - a standard kit would include a 24mm, a 50mm, a 100mm and a 200mm with a 1.4 tx perhaps. The 50mmf1.4 is sterling. But the 24-70f2.8 L covers much of this range very nicely and is just ever so handy to carry around. And the 70-200 IS L lenses are VERY good, sharp with buttery smooth bokeh. Don't turn up your nose at these lenses - they compare very favorably to the 135f2 in resolution. The 17-40 L is probably one of the better L lenses and is priced more reasonable than most of them.

I am a big fan of the 85mm lenses - goes back to shooting 35mm I imagine, and the 85mm f1.8 is inexpensive also. Which reminds me the 35mm f1.4 L is a very nice addition to a 20D - very nice indeed.
The 135 f2 L is kind of a strange bird - too long or not long enough - I haven't owned a 135mm lens in 30 years - that was when the 135 was popular.

And lastly - a surfing lens - 300mm+ I rec at least 400mm if that is possible.

And of course to really get sharp images with primes will require the consistent use of a good tripod.....

"gus - You're going to need a sherpa at this rate :huh :rofl

[ian408]

And lastly - a surfing lens - 300mm+ I rec at least 400mm if that is possible.

Depends on where your subjects are. I've used 300mm when they're right
below me and 500mm when farther out. The 1.4TC is a nice and handy thing
to have as well.

Ian

[gus]

And lastly - a surfing lens - 300mm+ I rec at least 400mm if that is possible.

And of course to really get sharp images with primes will require the consistent use of a good tripod.....

"gus - You're going to need a sherpa at this rate :huh :roflI have always liked the sharpness of the 400 L 5.6
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/31446431

http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/39035202

Whatever i buy i know i can resell it at decent $ & change it for something elses as long as they are good quality to start with.

[DoctorIt]

Whatever i buy i know i can resell it at decent $ & change it for something elses as long as they are good quality to start with.yup, ain't that the truth... kinda like real estate, big investment to get in, but once you're in, you're in :D

[wxwax]

I have always liked the sharpness of the 400 L 5.6
http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/31446431

http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/39035202

Whatever i buy i know i can resell it at decent $ & change it for something elses as long as they are good quality to start with.
You mean, Canon glass holds its value and FM isn't overpriced? :evil

:poke



:lol3

[DoctorIt]

You mean, Canon glass holds its value and FM isn't overpriced? :evil

:poke



:lol3Yeah, then the best thing to do is sell the lenses from Canada! Holy moly, there was a Canon 100 macro on there yesterday for $620 Canadian... um, that's still $500 USD!!! And they'll get it too because "lenses are more expensive in Canada". Wow.

[gus]

You mean, Canon glass holds its value and FM isn't overpriced? :evil

:poke



:lol3
:nono Canon holds its value & SOME of the stuff for sale on the net is overpriced. I will probably buy from there when im due & what i want is avail....

but i aint gonna pay $900 + shipping 2nd/3rd/4th hand for something thats $920 + shipping brand spankers.

Fish/andy... can you find me a B/slap smiley.:1drink

[gus]

Yeah, then the best thing to do is sell the lenses from Canada! Holy moly, there was a Canon 100 macro on there yesterday for $620 Canadian... um, that's still $500 USD!!! And they'll get it too because "lenses are more expensive in Canada". Wow.
Try $1071 USD for a 17-40 here or $1050 for a 10-22 or $1430 USD for 135 f/2 or $2000 USD for 70-200 IS :cry

The importers had better never question why Ebay has taken off here like it has.

[patch29]

Fish/andy... can you find me a B/slap smiley.:1drink

http://patch29.smugmug.com/photos/9744393-Ti.gif

[DoctorIt]

http://patch29.smugmug.com/photos/9744393-Ti.gifsmiley boy comes through with a winner, once again. :thumb

[gus]

smiley boy comes through with a winner, once again. :thumb:thumb