canon 10-22mm ef-s lens

AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
edited October 24, 2004 in Cameras
hurry, dell's got a deal on them but you have to act fast:

$70 off $525: D8NT03FJGL$XMF that's the coupon code.

772.95 list
-77.30 10% discount
-70 off from coupon

net cost: $625.66


no tax (for me, in nys) and free shipping. i know dell has a hit-or-miss reputation regarding shipping etc but i'm in no hurry :)
Andy

Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter

Comments

  • leebaseleebase Registered Users Posts: 630 Major grins
    edited October 23, 2004
    Are there any reviews...picts from this lens yet?

    Lee
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited October 23, 2004
    hi lee ...
    haven't seen any reviews yet, but folks have high hopes ...

    there are a few samples here on this site
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • leebaseleebase Registered Users Posts: 630 Major grins
    edited October 24, 2004
    What's your opinion on the suitability of this lens for shooting weddings? I have kept my set of lenses at 2.8 or faster -- minus my kit lens. I pretty much have every range I need covered except for wide.

    My main indoor workhorse lens is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 -- which I'm very happy with. During the ceremony I'm shooting with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which I'm also very happy with.

    I do use f2.8 frequently....though with my 20D I've been experimenting with f/4 at ISO3200 with good results.

    The last wedding I shot I did run into a few situations where 28 (on a 1.6 body) was not wide enough....and I was using flash at the time so I could have handled the 1.5 stop slower speed of the 10-22 lens.

    The 16-35 f2.8 L is too expensive for me at this point. I don't have any "L glass" because each time I've felt there was a quality third party lens for much less.

    The 17-40L is expensive, but I'd go for it if not for the f/4. Obviously it's not as wide as the 10-22...and the speed is about the same. So if I were going to accept f/4, I might as well get the 10-22 and have a very wide lens.

    Sigma and Tamron both have a 17-35 f2.8-4 lens. If I'm using this lens, I'm using it for the wide, so they have the speed I'm looking for at 60% of the price of the Canon 17-40L.

    And the leading contender right now is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 -- which is getting positive reviews....is 2.8 through the whole range....and might even replace the Tamron as my base workhorse lens.

    Your thoughts would be appreciated.

    Lee
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited October 24, 2004
    i don't have it yet, but ...
    i don't think it would be good. well, *maybe* on a tripod for wide formal shots, it'll be okay, but certainly not for any available light situational shooting, becuase it's a bit dark, eh? if you can't go for the 16-35L then i'd opt for the 17-40 (universally loved) and at f/4 and the higher isos you should be okay.

    i plan on using this lens for wide 'scapes. will stick with my 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 for indoor, lowlight shooting. i'm unsure if i'm keeping my 16-35L after i get the 10-22, so there may be one coming on the market soon lol3.gif


    leebase wrote:
    What's your opinion on the suitability of this lens for shooting weddings? I have kept my set of lenses at 2.8 or faster -- minus my kit lens. I pretty much have every range I need covered except for wide.

    My main indoor workhorse lens is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 -- which I'm very happy with. During the ceremony I'm shooting with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which I'm also very happy with.

    I do use f2.8 frequently....though with my 20D I've been experimenting with f/4 at ISO3200 with good results.

    The last wedding I shot I did run into a few situations where 28 (on a 1.6 body) was not wide enough....and I was using flash at the time so I could have handled the 1.5 stop slower speed of the 10-22 lens.

    The 16-35 f2.8 L is too expensive for me at this point. I don't have any "L glass" because each time I've felt there was a quality third party lens for much less.

    The 17-40L is expensive, but I'd go for it if not for the f/4. Obviously it's not as wide as the 10-22...and the speed is about the same. So if I were going to accept f/4, I might as well get the 10-22 and have a very wide lens.

    Sigma and Tamron both have a 17-35 f2.8-4 lens. If I'm using this lens, I'm using it for the wide, so they have the speed I'm looking for at 60% of the price of the Canon 17-40L.

    And the leading contender right now is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 -- which is getting positive reviews....is 2.8 through the whole range....and might even replace the Tamron as my base workhorse lens.

    Your thoughts would be appreciated.

    Lee
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • leebaseleebase Registered Users Posts: 630 Major grins
    edited October 24, 2004
    andy wrote:
    i plan on using this lens for wide 'scapes. will stick with my 35 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.4 for indoor, lowlight shooting. i'm unsure if i'm keeping my 16-35L after i get the 10-22, so there may be one coming on the market soon lol3.gif

    Do you think the 16-35L is worth the price premium over the 17-40L?

    Lee
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited October 24, 2004
    leebase wrote:
    Do you think the 16-35L is worth the price premium over the 17-40L?

    Lee
    nod.gif That extra speed is not just handy, sometimes it's a necessity.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Sign In or Register to comment.