canon 10-22mm ef-s lens

Andy

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

leebase

Are there any reviews...picts from this lens yet?

Lee

Andy

hi lee ...
haven't seen any reviews yet, but folks have high hopes ...

there are a few samples here on this site

leebase

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

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

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

leebase

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

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

Lee

wxwax

leebase wrote:

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

Lee

That extra speed is not just handy, sometimes it's a necessity.