Opinions on Canon EF-S 10-22 and 17-85
Dusty Sensiba
Registered Users Posts: 91 Big grins
I am looking for a couple of lenses to better my coverage of the wide angle and have a sharper lens for the walkabout thing (I currently have an 18-55, very soft and not wide enough)
What's everybody here's experience with the 10-22?
What about other non-canonical (Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24) wide zooms?
How is everyone liking their 17-85 IS USM?
Is it really nearly as good as L glass?
What's everybody here's experience with the 10-22?
What about other non-canonical (Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24) wide zooms?
How is everyone liking their 17-85 IS USM?
Is it really nearly as good as L glass?
0
Comments
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/2153699#111709365
Compared to your kit lens, both will be a lot better optically. Between the two ultrawides, you can read my views on the gallery.
Canon 10-22 is probably the best ultrawide for a cropped sensor body, but the sigma is very close. If price difference is not a factor, go with the Canon, if it is, go with the Sigma IMO.
I use the 17-85 for 95% of my shooting (as I pack it for travel on a motorcycle). It doesn't have the fit and finish of an L lens, but optically it's very sound. I keep trying to find a reason to replace it, but I haven't found one yet.
Although I would recommend the 17-85, the 17-55 is probably worth looking at.
NEW Smugmug Site
I haven't tried the other lenses you mentioned, but you'll be definetely happy with this one.
I use this lens a lot. It's very sharp for close-focus/macro work, but I find the sharpness falls off at longer distances. It's still fine, but certainly not a landscape lens. It is very light and portable as well. Great for candid people, grip-and-grin and such. But it is slow (sharpest around f11 or so).
But a rented a EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM for a shoot the other day and I gotta say, the difference was palpable. (So is the price!)
But here's the kicker. In two the three years your next SLR will almost certainly be full-frame. This seems to be the way the industry is going. That means any EF-S lenses you have will almost certainly become useless. So consider buying full-frame lenses. (EF or EF L or third-party.) I believe it's worth the extra coin because they are generally better optics and are far more likely to have an extended lifetime.
Plus, crop-frame and full-frame are different tools for different purposes. Crop-frame gives nature and sports photgraphers better reach. And reach is very expensive to obtain otherwise. Plus the smaller sensor cameras will always be more compact and less expensive than full-frame. I think they're here to stay.
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
17-85mm Lens @ 85mm F/5.6
17-85mm lens @ 50mm F/7.1
I have the Tokina - I researched this lens carefully, and I'm not trading with anybody.
The contenders:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm
Optically the three are close. I can't speak for the Sigma, but the build quality of the Tokina is definitely better. I tested three Canon 10/22s in the dealer's shop last winter, so had a good chance to get the feel of them.
Did some more research, discovered the Tokina, and ordered it from B+H Photovideo. The only other lens of mine that feels this solid and smooth is the 24/105L (it cost a fair bit more).
PS: It cost quite a bit less than the Canon 10/22 too.
Completely disagree also. FF still represents a single figure percentage of the market as a whole and has as many drawbacks as advantages. Its a niche market. Nice that it exists, but its not taking over. We're already at the stage that the vast majority of users see no difference between a 40D and a 5D, for example and as sensor tech improves, the amount of people that NEED the few benefits of FF will diminish.
I agree even less on the optical quality issue. Canons 10-22, 17-55IS, 60 macro bow down to no others. Sigma also have some cracking DC lenses and Nikons DX range is also first-rate. On top of that, more lenses underperform on FF bodies than on APS-C ones, hence the recent trend towards renewing the higher end lenses that previously showed fewer flaws on digital.
Hmm. Interesting opinions. You've both touched on points I've never considered. Care to elucidate on a few?
I'm wondering why no 'pro' SLRs use the smaller sensor? I've always assumed it's for better resolution at larger sizes. Pixel-density has always been king. Not so much on the sensor, maybe. But certainly in the enlarged end-product. Less enlarging equals more quality.
In the film world, we went for larger format to achieve superior quality. (Larger area equals both more silver (pixals) and less need to enlarge. I suggest the same holds true in the digital world.
I don't understand the comment about great reach in sports photography? The focal length certainly changes from one frame size to the next, but the only difference I see comparing apples to apples is that a crop-frame camera/lens combo covering the same field of view as an FF combo gets the same picture using smaller, lighter gear, but at the cost of pixel density in the resulting picture. At the end of the day, the pic from the crop-frame camera must be enlarged roughly 60 percent more to achieve the same 'print' size. (Sensor size versus print size.)
Now, I can see that crop-frame has a place. And that it will live on in the lower-end market for some time. There are several reasons and the size/weight issue is far from being a minor one.
But I suggest cost-of-entry to new users is the primary motivation for the manufacturers. Crop-frame cameras use a lighter mirror and less mass means cheaper actuators. Fewer pixels (same density but less real estate) means cheaper image processors. Lighter lenses means cheaper bodies and mounts. But all at the cost of resolution when compared to FF.
At one time the image sensor was by far the most expensive part of the camera. (I assume the demands of covering a smaller sensor area brings down the cost of manufacturing lenses too.) And developing a lower cost-of-entry option serves to bring far more buyers into the digital SLR fold.
But as the cost of sensors and other components plummets, that economic model begins to crumble and the necessity of maintaining two separate product lines diminishes. At the end of the day, if you can move all your users to a single line of bodies and lenses, manufacturing and marketing costs go down and volume rises.
I know I may well be wrong. And I really don't want to seem to be talking from a high-horse or anything. But I've been following this stuff for neigh-on 40 years and, like the twin-lens-reflex medium format cameras of yore (Yashica, Rolliflex, etc.) that ended up being replaced by reflex cameras (H'blad, YashicaFlex, etc.) I agree that crop-frame and similar format cameras will be around for some time.
But I just can't see a business need in nurturing the format for much longer. At least not in the semi-pro arena. And I believe that's the arena we are discussing here.
Of course I suppose it could just as easily go the other way, where FF bites the dust and cropped frame lives on. But my money is on the long-proven standard.
We all went to SLRs in the quest for superior control AND superior quality with superior portability. Cropped frame gear has let us do so at much lower cost-of-entry because manufacturing economics allowed it. That economic advantage is quickly diminishing now, as FF becomes less costly to manufacture.
So I'm suggesting that, for markets where image quality is of primary concern, today's cropped frame gear will loose utility far quicker than anything FF -- especially lenses.
I wouldn't mind knowing more about the lens quality comparison either. I haven't really dug into the matter, but any tech reports I've seen have usually relegated the EF-S type lenses to the medium-quality ranks (and lower) and I know my limited experience tends to support that so far? The 10 - 22 may be the one recent exception.
But film as a sensor has a given performance directly relative to its size. Digital sensors don't. There are diminishing returns with increasing the photosites on a digital sensor simply because there's a general limit to how the images will be used. For example, a 20mp 5"x4" sensor may very well have staggering performance, but if you have to enlarge it to billboard size to notice, whats the point of it? Also, sensors of different sizes, types (CCD or CMOS, Foveon etc) and even manufacturers vary wildly in characteristics. Velvia film has the same characteristics whatever the size; just more or less of them.
I'd say that given how the overwhelmingly vast majority of people output their work, (A3 print max, web etc), we're already at that point that only the few will really notice the benefits of a FF sensor today. Certainly without pixel-peeping, I'd find it very difficult to tell if an A4 print came from a 40D or a 5D.
But with a crop sensor, the image is being 'enlarged' by the lens before the image is recorded. For example, an image of a bird on a 40D might fill the frame with a 400mm lens and give you 10mp to enlarge with. A 5D using the same lens would have to be cropped to 5mp to give the same image. Sure you could just use a 600mm lens but then we're talking serious money and handling issues. Plus that 600mm lens would also go on the 40D anyway.
The sensor remains and will continue to remain the most expensive single component in a dSLR, vastly so in the case of FF sensors. Its true that crop sensors were originally marketed because of cost and manufacturing realities, but its developed a life of its own to the point where its now seen as the de-facto digital format. FF is a misnomer, an anachronism a century old. APS-C has, IMO, the best balance of advantages/disadvantages in the digital world. Its also seen as normal now. Lets face it, crop cameras have by far, the largest choice of lenses on the market, given they take all FF lenses as well. Anyone going from a 20D to a 5D and being told that some of their lenses won't fit is not going to be happy.
Neither will bite the dust. FF has settled into a hi-end niche and thats where it'll stay (well under 20% of the market) because it has its plus points. Fact remains that those plus-points are irrelevant to most photographers when cameras like the 40D and the D300 can put out such beautiful imagery. My argument is that as sensor tech improves, the amount of people feeling a need for a FF sensor will actually diminish as the inherent quality advantages become less and less noticeable in their outputted work.
Canons 17-55/2.8 IS is seen by many as superior to the 24-70L and the 24-105L. The 60/2.8 macro is probably a touch better than the 100/2.8. The new 18-55IS is better than any of the 28-70 style consumer zooms that Canon produces. Sigma and Tamron also manufacture lenses that punch well into L territory.
Its also important to remember how few people outside of enthusiasts are even aware that FF exists (ask a few friends who just dabble). Don't forget that Sony, Pentax/Samsung, Olympus/Panasonic etc, neither have FF sensors or any plans for them and that 95% of Canon and 99.9% of Nikon cameras have crop sensors. If nothing else believe me that APS-C is going nowhere and thats good news.
I completely agree with your assessments; and offer these comments on the crop sensors and their dedicated lenses:
1. 17/55 vs 24/70; MTF charts on photozone.de indicate that the 17/55 has the edge. (although it's a German site it's all in good English - DG users might find this a valuable site when assessing lenses).
2. My UWA is a Tokina 12/24; Photozone rates this lens on a par with the Canon 10/22, but clearly states that the Tokina has better build quality. I've handled both and can vouch for that.
3. Crop sensors; my 30D (1.6) easily achieves or betters the results I achieved from my 35 mm Canon A-1 film camera which I used until summer 2006.
EDIT: The 17/55 is at least as good as my 24/105L for IQ and colour. Someone asked me about the colour rendition of the 17/55; I replied that I had to look at the EXIF to determine which lens was used - unless the 24/105 was obviously zoomed out to twice the FL.
Well, this thread is certainly lending a glow of new-found respect to my lowly 20D! Guess I'll have to give more time to testing a few more EF-S's and start a major rethink?
I'm still pining for an EF 70 - 200 2.8 L IS, though. Any thoughts on that?
Thanks for all the info folks. And Sprout and Glenn -- take note that I get to stay in the middle-of-the-road for a while, being that Toronto is pretty-much half way between London and Victoria!!
I used to think that way, but as a serious amateur, I realized that even if I was to buy a FF camera, my EF-S body would become my backup, so my EF-S lenses would remain useful. The small sensor may also become entrenched at the low end, simply because current small sensor bodies are already cruising well past the pixel and noise requirements of a good 8x10 print, meaning they meet most people's needs.
If you watch the trajectory of digital media, FF is not going to become 100% of the market any time soon. In music, the audiophiles drool over higher and higher digital fidelity, but the most dramatic growth in digital music files and players was in MP3...which represents a steep drop in output quality! The same goes for photography. Sure, everybody knew Nikon had to go full frame and that Canon is going to push it further, but once again, the most commonly found type of camera within reach of the average person today is the lowly camera phone!
Given the way digital media tends to create a pyramid with a narrow point at the high end and a wide base at the low end, clearly there is going to be a rather substantial niche for the "small" sensor dSLR for some time.
Back on the topic of the lenses, I started with the 17-85, and it's nice...if you have the light for it. But I found the zoom range too short and the aperture too small for low light, basically it didn't do enough of anything, so I am much happier now with the amazing 17-55, only wishing it was built better and didn't suck up dust like it does. The constant f/2.8 aperture on the 17-55 solved a lot of low-light problems that the IS alone could not, which is why I did not want the f/4 lenses. I have paired it with the 24-105L for a longer range daylight walkaround option, and am happy with this complementary combo.
On another forum, those that have the 70/200 f/2.8 lens rave about it, although they generally admit that it is VERY heavy.
At present (I'm getting more serious) I'm considering both, although I'm leaning towards the f/4 for the following reasons:
1. Photozone (you'll see me quote this site often) rates the f/4 version very highly. In particular, read the Verdicts for both lenses at the bottom. They give rare praise for the f/4, but for the f/2.8 they suggest that "at 200 mm it disappoints."
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm
2. A Bokeh test by Rick Denny showed that the f/4 lens held its own with the vaunted Zeiss Jenna MC Sonnar 180/2.8 lens.
http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm
3. It's a heck of a lot lighter; the weights are 1470 grams and 760 grams - guess which is which!
4. How many times would I actually need f/2.8 with a camera (30D) that will give relatively noise-free images up to at least ISO 800? With the latest IS?
5. There is quite a price difference.
Glenn
This is a great lens! It pairs up beautifully with a 24-28mm to 70-75mm mid-range zoom giving you a continuous zoom range of 12mm to 70-75mm.
The lens is built like a tank and it provides great imagery. The price of about $500 (including a nice lens shade) ia great also!
I have recently acquired a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens but, really like the range of 12-17mm when I want to go wide.
But one other small, but very important point: the sexier the gear, the more confident people are with your skills -- like it or not. I learned years ago that if you walk in with a Pentax, you're an amateur. If you're carrying a Blad, you're a pro. No contest...
Go figure.
Hey - I liked my Pentax S and SV cams - beautiful smooth operating machines. And quiet too. But then along came Canon and kicked them out of contention.
I hear you - fortunately I don't have to worry about looking like a pro.
People work (which I seldom do) requires fast lenses. I have use for a longer focal length to reduce the parallax problem when focus stacking - successive focus distances can wreak havoc with objects that require a total DOF of a few inches - like a rose or dahlia.
I bought the sigma 10-20mm. I'm really happy with it. The images are pretty sharp and the pricetag is nice too. I only wish it was a 2.8! Other than that, I think it's a great lens. I did look at buying the Canon, but at double the price I couldn't afford it with still being in school. I initially wanted to get the Tokina as I had done a lot of research on the Sigma/Tokina/Canon wide angle lenses (good reviews on Popular Photography website) and I was impressed with the lab results. I also already owned the Tokina macro 100mm, so I felt assured I'd be getting a good quality lens. However, I also did not want to order the Tokina lens in and pay the duty, exchange and so forth (I live in Canada). So, I ended up getting the Sigma-no regrets. IMHO I think it really just comes down to the price tag - all 3 of the lenses are great.
There is no duty on lenses or cameras brought into Canada from the US.
There will be a brokerage fee though, but this can be reduced considerably by using "UPS Expedited" shipping which costs more but includes the brokerage fees. If you go through the motions of ordering a lens at B & H Photovideo, the prices are listed.
Another solution is to use the US Postal Service - when it reaches Canada, it should be handled by Purloator Courier (which has been owned by Canada Post for about ten years). But I'm not sure what happens with the brokerage fees.
Unfortunately, I should have waited until the Cdn dollar reached par or better - I bought my Tokina back in March when it was about $0.85 US.
As most regulars here are aware, I'm a Tokina 12-24 fanboy.
As has been mentioned, the Tokina matches very nicely with the 24-70. I really likethe combo & it's served me quite well (this weekend's shooting at Taliesin West the two lenses did quite well in fact.
Glenn: any of the 70-200 lenses will be great. I've used all but the f4IS version and all were excellent as expected. I mainly used the f2.8 IS, and ended up buyingthe non-IS f2.8. If you need the f2.8 speed, you need it & the f4 won't do--I need the speed. To me the weight is just the price of the speed & it really doesn't bother me. I've had the lens on my gripped 20D all day comfortably--I use the Op/Tech Pro Loop strap which really comes into it's own with that setup.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Actually I was looking at my half of the puzzle.
With landscapes and flower closeups, I generally start at f/5.6 and stop down from there; occasionally I might use f/4 and focus stacking to eliminate the background but get a flower crisp.
So far my limited experience is the shipping USPS/Purolator to Canada is faster AND involves lower brokerage fees. (While shipping Purolator within Canada is, from my experience, by-far the worst choice.)
Obviously in film days, there was film, enlargers, slides, negative holders, entire photo processing machines, etc, all dependant on strict adherance to the spec and size of the 35mm negative. BUT, we no longer have that. The size of the digital image or the sensor is of no concern whatsoever outside of the camera. Heck, they could all go 4x5, since the aspect ratio means very little, esp with digital cropping, though admittedly it would be an inconvenience for frames, printers, etc.
What is to prevent a camera manufacturer from making a sensor LARGER than 35mm? Why not? Especially if sensors drop in price over the years. Remember, there was a time when the CPU was the most expensive part of a PC. Now my monitor and graphics card cost more than the CPU.
I think assuming FF becomes the norm is making far too many assumptions based on old market drivers, and I feel that a different size sensor may be just likey as a 35mm sized one. In any case, we've bought 8 track players, cassette decks, record players and DVD players over the years, only to see them get obsoleted as well. It could happen to APS sized sensors as well, but who knows? Buy what you need now, since in 5 years it could all be obsolete anyway. Resticting yourself to pick only lenses that might be use on FF is making a bet just as deciding APS will be here forever. Buy what meets your needs and go take photos.
You are missing a few very important things here. Of primary concern is that even though full-frame sensors will drop in price, the smaller sized sensors will drop in price more quickly even still. A 35mm sensor size will ALWAYS be more expensive than an ASP-C size sensor, which will ALWAYS be more expensive than smaller sensors as well.
Secondly, larger sensors require larger lenses, and this is more expensive. There is no way around that and technology is not about to make glass lenses cheaper the way technology makes silicon chips cheaper.
Lastly, a larger sensor makes the entire camera larger. A Canon Elf can be that small only because its sensor is also rather small, primarily meaning the optics can be small as well. A smaller sensor also uses less power, allowing for a smaller battery. And all this also translates into lower cost. You get the idea.
I agree.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
In the film world, 35mm was based on motion picture stock. Still cameras used far larger stock at the time. Partially because of technical needs and partially because that was the standard.
But the motion picture industry needed far smaller film in roll form. As the stock became finer gain and faster, it became obvious that it would also work well in many still photo applications. Hence, the Leica was born.
But more than one hundred years later folks were till using medium and large format cameras. More important: until the late 1990s, medium format was still the preferred format of the professional and fine art photographer.
Why? There are several reasons. But by far the most prominent was the quest for resolution, colour saturation and acutance. The same emulsion in a larger format gave you more image-capture real estate and thus finer representation of the subject.
It's the same in the digital world. And if this wasn't true (to be overly general) everyone would be using a $10.00 point-and-shoot and spending far more time in post processing.
I agree there are far fewer reasons to stick with the 35mm frame size these days. Logically. But market forces are not always logical. Besides, it is nice to be able to use the old glass. And sixty percent more pixels (at the same resolution) is nothing to sneeze at.
You may also note that almost ALL commercial studio work is now done in digital format, but using medium and large format sensors.
So, while I agree there will always be room for cropped-frame cameras -- as there always has been -- I'm far from sure manufacturers will see any advantage in maintaining several sensor size standards. It was tried with film and, in most cases, failed miserably, as the roll-film market settled on 35mm and 120mm stock. Sure, '110' had its day. As did the Kodak Disc format. But we're not talking 'record keeping' here. We're talking 'photography.'
And what did Kodak and Fuji call that last cry for help? APS film was it? Cropped-frame 35mm stock in a film cassette with thumb-nail sized 4X6 index prints? That seemed like a great idea at the time. So much so that it became a multi-BILLION-dollar, 20-year, marketing effort. Still, for various reasons, it went no where and finally died at the hands of digital point-and-shoot.
And sure, processing machines etc. are no longer an issue. But standardization reduces manufacturing costs and sensors are no exception.
I'm willing to agree that today's 'C' sensor format may stick around. It may even become a lasting standard for lower-end SLRs and higher end point-and-shoot cameras. That sounds like a good argument for the many reasons detailed in this thread.
But I also believe that where there's money and interest in serious imaging, sensor size will still be king because, no matter how fine pixel density gets, more real estate will always produce more fidelity.
(1200 dpi in a 1X1 sensor is not the same as 1200 dpi in a 1.5 X 1.5 sensor. They are both 1200 DPI, sure. But the slightly larger sensor has more than twice the pixel count.)
Why 'full frame' (35mm)? Simply because it's a known and trusted standard that will need less effort to create greater market acceptance. Why push a snow ball up hill if you don't need too?
The market didn't settle on 35mm, it was all that was ever really available for decades and by the time serious innovation hit the market, 35mm was entrenched.
APS-C is the new entrenched standard and 35mm as a digital format has to offer serious benefits to the overwhelming number of photographers to change that. It really doesn't. It offers slightly cleaner and more noise-free images but nothing else. Its not as if its comparing FF with crap. APS-C has superb image quality, far greater than virtually all photographers need.
The lens thing is a real red herring. There are more wides and ultra-wides available for the crop bodies than there ever were for 35mm cameras and vastly more people have them. I never knew a single film photographer in twenty years who had a lens wider than 24mm. There are myriad users of these lenses now and all on the crop bodies starting from an equivalent 15mm. Sigma even have circular fisheyes now just for the crop cameras (4.5mm !!!). At the other end of the focal ranges, APS-C has more reach than ever. As APS-C has already hit the widest possible mark and will always be 'ahead' at the telephoto end, wheres the downside?
Your analogy about the snowball is more apt when redirected. FF sensors are the snowball. Massive effort would be needed to push FF sensors as standard to overcome massive general market apathy. The 5D has been nothing more than an okay seller, the 1Ds line is irrelevant in market terms and the fuss about the D3 is more that Nikon is finally competing with Canon in the pro market than about the actual relevance of the sensor itself.