• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

Adding to my lens collection

MrSix

MrSix

MrSix

Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2004
Posts
6,146
Location
Los Angeles
I'm looking to add to my current lens collection and I've got my eye on a few lenses.

I currently shoot on a 30D body with either my 24-70L or my 75-300 USM.
Now i'm not sure which way to go with my next purchase and I do appreciate that the options are like chalk and cheese...

I've been looking at the Canon 10-22mm for when I shoot at skateparks or anywhere where I need the subject to fill the whole frame as well as including plenty of background in the image too for context.

I've also got my eye on either the Canon 100-400L or the 70-200L f/2.8 IS.
Now the problem I can see with choosing one or the other of these lenses is that should I go for the 70-200, I lose 200mm of zoom over the 100-400, however I get a faster lens which would be better for shooting indoors or in low ambient light situations.

On the flip side, I utilize off camera lighting a lot, therefore low light isn't usually that much of an issue for me, so should I go for the 100-400 instead?

If you have any experiences with any of the three lenses mentioned:

Canon 10-22mm
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS
Canon 100-400

Please can you let me know the pros and cons of each as well as some example shots that I might find helpful when it comes to making my decision.

Cheers.
 
MrSix said:
I've been looking at the Canon 10-22mm for when I shoot at skateparks or anywhere where I need the subject to fill the whole frame as well as including plenty of background in the image too for context.
Click to expand...
Have you considered the Tokina AT-X 107 DX Fish-Eye AF 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5. It's a unique lens and great for skate parks:

871779693_6ba6b24109.jpg


483273928_8b870aea63.jpg


410889285_f2de081307.jpg
 
I've not heard of that lens before now, so no I hadn't considered it.

I do like fisheye shots, however I can't help but feel it would be a little too "faddy" for my liking. If I bought a 10-22 then I could use it for architecture, portraits, interior shots etc. however a fisheye lens would perhaps be a little out of place outside of a skatepark.
 
Definately go for a wide angle... you'll get more use out of it.

I highly recommend the 17-40 L. My favourite lens. I have the 17-40L, 70-200L and 28-135 IS. It's the 17-40L which is 99% of the time stuck on my 30D.
 
nomore said:
Definately go for a wide angle... you'll get more use out of it.

I highly recommend the 17-40 L. My favourite lens. I have the 17-40L, 70-200L and 28-135 IS. It's the 17-40L which is 99% of the time stuck on my 30D.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go for a 17-40L purely because it only offers me 7mm more at the wide end than my 24-70L, although I don't contest that it is a very good lens.

I'm literally torn 50:50 between the 10-22 and the 100-400 at the moment.
I can think of equal scenarios where I could use both lenses which makes it hard to decide as I can justify neither lense more than the other.

Wide angle pros:
  • Great for interior shots
  • Great for landscapes
  • Quirky portait capability?
  • Cheaper

Zoom pros:
  • Great for shooting action sports from a distance
  • Great for portraits
  • Image Stabilzer and L glass quality
  • It's white - so my E-penis will be considerably longer.
 
Had the 100 - 400. Got the 10 - 22 and getting the 70 - 200 f2.8 IS

I sold the 100 - 400 to fund a infrared only camera and when canon release an update the 100 - 400 I will buy that again. I am replacing it soon with the 70 - 200 as I need the extra quality, better IS and wide aperture for faster and low light shots.

The 10 - 22 is good for my architecture (even with distortion) landscapes and UWA portraits.

Personally I feel that your basically putting your interest in the skating park so I would go for the 10 -22 if you are working in close proximity with your subjects.
 
MrSix said:
If I bought a 10-22
Click to expand...

At 10mm, that lens will still distort massively, although not quite as much as a fisheye.

edit - search for my posts and wide angle discussions, i posted some 10-20 sigma examples of distortion :) i would but i've just realised im late to meet someone :p
 
Fstop11 said:
feel that your basically putting your interest in the skating park so I would go for the 10 -22 if you are working in close proximity with your subjects.
Click to expand...

Not totally, I have only shot at a skatepark once in the past 18 months. As I said, I could list examples of times when a zoom would be just as useful.
 
You've already got telephoto zoom covered with the 75-300. I'd go for the wide angle to give you more range then look to upgrade your telephoto later.
 
get the Sigma 10-20, barely any difference between it and the 10-22, and then get saving for the 70-200 F2.8.

The 100-400 is a nice lens but the 70-200 is magical :)
 
I can't help feel the 70-200 would just be too short though...then you have to consider TC's which are megabucks and it all starts getting really expensive.

Is the 100-400 really THAT bad that it was honoured with an L badge?
 
Canon 10-22mm
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS
Canon 100-400

All three of those are good lenses. The 17-40 L is also a good lens, but they cover so many different focal lengths it would be impossible to debate which is best. You really need to decide what focal length you need and then which lens can best provide that (imho).
 
MrSix said:
Is the 100-400 really THAT bad that it was honoured with an L badge?
Click to expand...
Sharpness from the 100-400 is superb for a zoom and with the relatively slow speed of skateboarders auto focus shouldn't be an issue from either the lens or the camera.
 
A few thoughts:
- None of the lenses you mention are bad by a long way, quite the contrary. The key downside I see with the 10-22 is that it's an EFS lens. So if you ever upgrade to say a 5D, you'll have to ditch the lens. The Sigma's an interesting alternative, but a further option might be a 15mm (non zoom). Nice and light, with great image quality. Would be a good companian to your 24-70.
- The 100-400 is supposedly a brilliant zoom, and not far behind the fixed length lenses. The problems are mainly weight (it's a big lump), and the inability to work in really low light. Having said that, if you go with a 70-200 F2.8, that's around the same weight and doesn't have anything like the range.
As you don't already own a 70-200 (which seems to be virtually a standard issue for Canon users), then the 100-400 makes a LOT of sense.
 
^^Gord^^ said:
Canon 10-22mm
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS
Canon 100-400

All three of those are good lenses. The 17-40 L is also a good lens, but they cover so many different focal lengths it would be impossible to debate which is best. You really need to decide what focal length you need and then which lens can best provide that (imho).
Click to expand...

They are indeed all very different, which is why I said my dilemma was between chalk and cheese. I can justify using all of the lenses mentioned pretty much equally.

Mr_Sukebe said:
A few thoughts:
- None of the lenses you mention are bad by a long way, quite the contrary. The key downside I see with the 10-22 is that it's an EFS lens. So if you ever upgrade to say a 5D, you'll have to ditch the lens. The Sigma's an interesting alternative, but a further option might be a 15mm (non zoom). Nice and light, with great image quality. Would be a good companian to your 24-70.
Click to expand...

I had a go with the Sigma 10-20 today and I have to say I was slightly unimpressed by the sharpness at both ends of the zoom.
Although it is a very good point about the Canon equivalent being an EFS lens...I will definately be upgrading probably not for a couple of years yet, but I will be going full frame at some point down the line. It would seem silly to spend £400+ on a lens only to have it become useless to me in 2 or 3 years.

Out of interest, what lenses are available which will work on full frame canon bodies that cover that wide angle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom