Canon lens choice dilemma

timk519

I'm currently shooting with a Rebel XT body, and currently have a 17-55/4 and 20-135/4.0 IS.

I"m looking at possibly getting a 16-35 2.8L and 17-55/2.8 IS pair of lenses, but I'm wondring if it makes sense to get two lenses that cover almost the same range, except for the 16-35's possible build / glass quality over the 17-55.

I want the 17-55/2.8 for when I'm riding my motorcycle and it's getting dark outside. I've taking thousands of pics w/the stock 17-55 lens, but when it gets dark it's not up to the job.

Now, if I get the 16-35 for when I'm faced with a landscape vista that a 18-55 can't cover, but if I'm only getting an extra 1 mm of apature, will it be enough, or should I go w/a smaller lens?

Is this a good idea, or should I have my head examined?

DavidTO

Start with the 17-55. The 16-35 would be a waste, IMO, when you have the one lens, you don't need the other.

I think the 17-55 and the 10-22 are a great combo.

Elaine

I agree...I'm really enjoying my 17-55 2.8 and would rather get a super wide than another one of similar range.

timk519

Thanks for the comments folks - I've heard a lot of good things about the 17-55/2.8, which is why I'm looking forward to sourcing one. So the question then comes down to which wide-angle lens to get.

Comparing the lenses a bit further, they have a max diagonal FOV

10-22: 107.3 - 63.3 degrees

16-35: 108.1 - 63.0 degrees
16-35 II: 108.1 - 63.0 degrees

17-55: 78.3 - 27.5 degrees

The 16-35 has a wider FOV than the 10-22? .

So the main difference between the 10-22 and the 16-35 besides the speed, and glass, is the aperture, which means (correct me if I'm wrong) a greater DOF?

DavidTO

The numbers for the 16-35 are for a full frame sensor. The 10-22 only works on a 1.6 crop sensor. So it is virtually the same as the 16-35 when you take the differences in sensor size into account.

1.6 x 10 = 16

Tommyboy

I ride a bike and take a camera along. Today I brought the 10-22 and the 17-85.

I use the 17-85 IS for 95% of my shots. This is, IMHO, a vastly underrated lens. You might give it some thought. It's not as fast as the 17-55, but it is image stabilized.

timk519

DavidTO wrote:

The numbers for the 16-35 are for a full frame sensor. The 10-22 only works on a 1.6 crop sensor. So it is virtually the same as the 16-35 when you take the differences in sensor size into account.

1.6 x 10 = 16

Ok, so to make the playing field level, the effective focal ranges are:

Listed Actual
10-22 = 16-35
16-35 = 25-56
17-55 = 27-88
17-85 = 27-136


Correct?

Given the angle of view numbers I'd posted earlier, this would seem to indicate that the main difference between the 10-22 and the 16-35 is 9 mm of focal distance at the low end, 13 mm the long end, and f/2.8 vs f/3.5 - f/4.5, as the angular field of views appear to be nearly identical.

@ Tommyboy, the 17-85 isn't really in consideration partly because of the speed issue, and partly because I've already got a 28-135 IS.

colourbox

Tommyboy wrote:

I use the 17-85 IS for 95% of my shots. This is, IMHO, a vastly underrated lens. You might give it some thought. It's not as fast as the 17-55, but it is image stabilized.

I've had both on my Rebel XT. Choosing between the 17-85 and 17-55 f/2.8 comes down to what kind of shooting is being done. If it's landscapes or other stationary objects, the 17-85 handheld in daylight (or on a tripod when it's dark) should be quite good, with no real need for the 17-55 f/2.8 other than better image quality. The 17-85 is great...if you have the light for it.

Handheld in low light without flash, the 17-55 f/2.8 completely destroys the 17-85 because the 17-55 f/2.8 is so much faster. Both have image stabilization, but the 17-85 starts at f/4 and only gets slower as you zoom in; the 17-55 f/2.8 can maintain f/2.8 speed at any focal length. If your subject is moving in low light, you're in real trouble with the 17-85, because image stabilization fails to be an advantage since it can only stabilize you, not the subject. I would only consider the 17-85 for low light handheld if I had a newer body that has very good low-noise performance above ISO 800.

timk519

colourbox wrote:

Handheld in low light without flash, the 17-55 f/2.8 completely destroys the 17-85 because the 17-55 f/2.8 is so much faster. Both have image stabilization, but the 17-85 starts at f/4 and only gets slower as you zoom in; the 17-55 f/2.8 can maintain f/2.8 speed at any focal length. If your subject is moving in low light, you're in real trouble with the 17-85, because image stabilization fails to be an advantage since it can only stabilize you, not the subject. I would only consider the 17-85 for low light handheld if I had a newer body that has very good low-noise performance above ISO 800.

This is another reason why I'm after the 17-55/2.8 over the 17-85, because some of my shooting's going to be done from a motorcycle at highway speeds.

darryl

You're shooting from a moving motorcycle? As a passenger, one would hope? :-}

Dogdots

I have the Rebel XTI and just received my 10-22. Love it so far.

All my other shots are taken with my 24-105.

Dogdots/Mary

timk519

darryl wrote:

You're shooting from a moving motorcycle? As a passenger, one would hope? :-}

Not at all. While all the shots I take are "blind" since I can't really use the viewfinder, with practice I've gotten reasonably good, which has resulted in some memorable shots.

I generally only shoot when I'm in a "steady-state" condition like on a long curve or straight-away - just point the camera, shoot, take a peek at the preview, and if I don't like what I see - check the traffic and then shoot again.

As long as I'm careful and always give the surrounding traffic most of my attention and only shoot when there's nobody near me, it's worked pretty well.