| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2006 11:32:25 PM · #1 |
| Hi all. I'm selling my Rebel XT and kit lens (18-55mm) because I just upgraded to a 30D. So, I have a hole now in my wide-angle lens department. I can afford the 17-40 L f/4 from Canon, but what I'm wondering is whether or not I should get something cheaper like the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4, or Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 HSM. I'm primarily going to use the lens in lighted situations, but I'm sure there will be occasions when I utilize it for low-light or night shots. Anybody that has gone through this dilemma, or has the lenses I mentioned, your input would be greatly appreciated. And, anyone else who has an opinion, please give it. Thanks a bunch. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 11:35:59 PM · #2 |
| Why not keep the 18-55 until you can afford something a little faster? If you've got the money, the Tamron 12-24 is a great wide, but again, not all that fast. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 11:38:12 PM · #3 |
You get what you pay for with L-series lenses. Image quality wise, build quality, etc. The 17-40 is definitely going to be my next lens, because I can use it on my film camera and it'll be an ultrawide, and down the road if I get a full frame digital it'll be the same way.
Since you're getting it to use on a 30D, it'll be the equivelant of a normal zoom (24-70 range) rather than an ultrawide. They make some ultrawides that are designed to be in the 16-40 range on digital, one of them is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm. Those won't work with film cameras or anything but the 1.6x crop cameras, but if that's all you shoot, they're great. |
|
|
|
08/29/2006 11:38:29 PM · #4 |
| A lot depends on where you're going with your other lens choices, and whether 17mm is wide enough to meet your needs. If you plan on acquiring a 24-70 type lens, then consider the Canon 10-22 for the wide end. If 17mm is wide enough for your shooting needs, the 17-40 is a phenomenal choice. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 01:00:57 AM · #5 |
| thank you for your input, i'll definately look into the canon 10-22 and the tamron 12-24. they both are fast enough for my shooting needs. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 03:54:53 AM · #6 |
| Canon people rave about the 10-22 which looks fantastic...but what would I know, I am a Nikon man |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 04:31:38 AM · #7 |
Are you really after a very wide angle, or something to replace the 18-55 kit lens? The 10-22 is meant to be a superb lens, but I don't think I'd consider it as a replacement for a midrange standard zoom.
Unless, of course, you got the 10-22, and then got something like the 50 f1.4 for those low-light standard shots.... |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 01:59:51 PM · #8 |
| I'm mostly after a replacement for the 18-55, which is why I'm considering the 17-40 L, but I'm sure I can manage most situations with the 10-22 and my 50mm f/1.4. Then later I can save up and get the 24-70mm L, after I sell my soul of course, haha. |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 02:13:41 PM · #9 |
Just my $.02...
I have the 17-40 and the 10-22. I find in most of my shooting situations that the 10-22 is too wide. If you are replacing the kit lens and looking for a walk around/general use lens, the 17-40 would be much better. For me, the 10-22 is more of a specialty lens only used when I want to go really wide.
edit to add: and the 17-40 will fit on a pro body when you upgrade!
Message edited by author 2006-08-30 14:16:19.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 02:56:49 PM EDT.
