OI ...fish

gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
edited March 17, 2005 in Cameras
You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's & man thats a bloody nice lens. Help me here mate...im close to pulling the trigger on either lens.
«1

Comments

  • Michiel de BriederMichiel de Brieder Registered Users Posts: 864 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

    Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's & 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
    *In my mind it IS real*
    Michiel de Brieder
    http://www.digital-eye.nl
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Michiel de Brieder wrote:
    it IS a bloody nice lens
    Wha chew talkin' bout willis ? ..........the 17-40 or the 10-22 ?
  • Michiel de BriederMichiel de Brieder Registered Users Posts: 864 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    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
    *In my mind it IS real*
    Michiel de Brieder
    http://www.digital-eye.nl
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Michiel de Brieder wrote:
    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.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • SeamusSeamus Registered Users Posts: 1,573 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

    Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's & 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.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    andy wrote:
    have i helped? lol3.gif
    gerg.gif this is a bad bad sickness isnt it ? You all laughing 'eh ?
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    gerg.gif 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.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited March 14, 2005
    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. ne_nau.gif
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    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....

    ;)
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • marlofmarlof Registered Users Posts: 1,833 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    DavidTO wrote:
    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? Or is there another reason your dream goodie is a 580EX? ;)
    enjoy being here while getting there
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    DavidTO wrote:
    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.gif
    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
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    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.
    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
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited March 14, 2005
    DavidTO wrote:
    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 - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited March 14, 2005
    wxwax wrote:
    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:):
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    pathfinder wrote:
    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...)
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Great link, Andy, thanks!
    andy wrote:
    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.
    Very impressive pictures!
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Nikolai wrote:
    Very impressive pictures!
    I get depressed every time Andy links to his galleries. :cry
    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
  • fishfish Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

    Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's & 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?

    15466217-L.jpg
    "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." - Edward Weston
    "The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."-Hunter S.Thompson
  • DavidTODavidTO Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 19,160 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    marlof wrote:
    Well, we still know, and even more.... You dislike that 420EX? Or is there another reason your dream goodie is a 580EX? ;)

    I want a multi-flash setup.
    Moderator Emeritus
    Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
  • SeamusSeamus Registered Users Posts: 1,573 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    fish wrote:
    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?

    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 waymwink.gif ). 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.
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited March 14, 2005
    andy wrote:
    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...)
    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 -
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    DavidTO wrote:
    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.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    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 !
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    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
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • SamSam Registered Users Posts: 7,419 Major grins
    edited March 14, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    You sure your still happy with the 10-22 ?

    Ive been looking at 17-40 stuff like this lass's & 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
    www.samlinvillephotography.com
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 15, 2005
    Sam wrote:
    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
    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.
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 15, 2005
    andy wrote:
    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.
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 15, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    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.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited March 15, 2005
    andy wrote:
    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.
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited March 15, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    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... ne_nau.gif

    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.
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

Sign In or Register to comment.