Digital SLR: Wide-Angle Fun in Utah!

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

the tokina 12-24 retails for about $499. i've seen it on some sites for less. i believe B&H has it for $470.

edit: i have a lens that costs $1000 i didn't buy it though! (nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8)

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

LOL! My next one, a Canon EF 24-105 F4L will cost $1250. I had been considering the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L IS for $1700, but it's too heavy and big to travel with easily.

$750 isn't that much for a lens. My Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is a good "value" lens at $380. My Canon EFS 17-85 F3.5-4.5 IS cost $800.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

750 is pretty average for good glass, it tops out round 1500, for lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8 VR

the big primes 300,400,600 cost thousands

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

LOL! My next one, a Canon EF 24-105 F4L will cost $1250. I had been considering the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L IS for $1700, but it's too heavy and big to travel with easily.

$750 isn't that much for a lens. My Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is a good "value" lens at $380. My Canon EFS 17-85 F3.5-4.5 IS cost $800.

Let me know if you every sell your 17-85, I would seriously consider purchasing it from you.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: tami

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

the tokina 12-24 retails for about $499. i've seen it on some sites for less. i believe B&H has it for $470.

edit: i have a lens that costs $1000 i didn't buy it though!

I never cross-shopped the Tokina as 2mm is a lot on the wide-end with a APS-C sensor.

The Sigma 10-20 came out a few days before I bought my 10-22 but no one was sure how it performed.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: CheapArse

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

LOL! My next one, a Canon EF 24-105 F4L will cost $1250. I had been considering the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L IS for $1700, but it's too heavy and big to travel with easily.

$750 isn't that much for a lens. My Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is a good "value" lens at $380. My Canon EFS 17-85 F3.5-4.5 IS cost $800.

Let me know if you every sell your 17-85, I would seriously consider purchasing it from you.

It actually is for sale. ATOTer DeviousTrap currently has it on loan and will decide to buy it from me or not by the end of the week. I want to get around $400-450 for it. It's in like-new condition...at least it was when I mailed it off to DT a few weeks ago. He took it to Europe with him...and is using it at no-charge at the moment.

 

[z0mb13]

wow talk about an expensive hobby!!

I thought golf was expensive...

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: z0mb13
wow talk about an expensive hobby!!

I thought golf was expensive...

Good glass has always been expensive! Digital camera bodies will continue to get better and fall in price, but glass will always been expensive. And there is a difference between mediocre glass and really high quality glass.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

amazing. beautiful pics :thumbsup:

 

[z0mb13]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: z0mb13
wow talk about an expensive hobby!!

I thought golf was expensive...

Good glass has always been expensive! Digital camera bodies will continue to get better and fall in price, but glass will always been expensive. And there is a difference between mediocre glass and really high quality glass.

so in general more expensive lens = better pictures??

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: z0mb13
wow talk about an expensive hobby!!

I thought golf was expensive...

Good glass has always been expensive! Digital camera bodies will continue to get better and fall in price, but glass will always been expensive. And there is a difference between mediocre glass and really high quality glass.

so in general more expensive lens = better pictures??

Well, a lot also comes down to talent. Buying a $1500 lens won't turn you into Ansel Adams, but it at least gives you a better starting point. Some DSLR beginners have the money to go out and buy 10 Canon "L" lenses, whether they need them or not. Some, like me, start with good "value" lenses and work up from there after finding out what kinds of photos we take. For example, someone with money might go drop $1700 on that Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L IS, but I know from personal experience that I don't shoot wildlife photography and don't have the need for such a telephoto lens nor the desire to carry one around, plus the necessary tripod.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: CheapArse

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: dartworth
Is the EF-S lens a true 10-22mm on a XT or 16-35mm?

It's EF-S, so it's designed for APS-C sensors like those found on the 300D/350D/20D. So the 1.6x multiplier applies.

:thumbsup:

Where did you pick that lens up?

Bought mine at Amazon for $750. B&H sells it for like $730 now. You can sometimes get a good "DELL deal" on it, but they delay and delay before they finally ship.

holy crap $750 for a lens!?!?!? I hope you dont break em!!

LOL! My next one, a Canon EF 24-105 F4L will cost $1250. I had been considering the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L IS for $1700, but it's too heavy and big to travel with easily.

$750 isn't that much for a lens. My Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is a good "value" lens at $380. My Canon EFS 17-85 F3.5-4.5 IS cost $800.

Let me know if you every sell your 17-85, I would seriously consider purchasing it from you.

It actually is for sale. ATOTer DeviousTrap currently has it on loan and will decide to buy it from me or not by the end of the week. I want to get around $400-450 for it. It's in like-new condition...at least it was when I mailed it off to DT a few weeks ago. He took it to Europe with him...and is using it at no-charge at the moment.

thats right he does have a canon, i forgot he traded/sold his sigma for it

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: z0mb13

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: z0mb13
wow talk about an expensive hobby!!

I thought golf was expensive...

Good glass has always been expensive! Digital camera bodies will continue to get better and fall in price, but glass will always been expensive. And there is a difference between mediocre glass and really high quality glass.

so in general more expensive lens = better pictures??

Well, a lot also comes down to talent. Buying a $1500 lens won't turn you into Ansel Adams, but it at least gives you a better starting point. Some DSLR beginners have the money to go out and buy 10 Canon "L" lenses, whether they need them or not. Some, like me, start with good "value" lenses and work up from there after finding out what kinds of photos we take. For example, someone with money might go drop $1700 on that Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L IS, but I know from personal experience that I don't shoot wildlife photography and don't have the need for such a telephoto lens nor the desire to carry one around, plus the necessary tripod.

you woudl need a 4x5 or 8x10 view cam be be lo AA, i know people that do large work like that, its stunning


and the 70-200 woudl be ill suited for most wildlife, id much rather have a 200-400 f/4 VR for that

 

[EvilYoda]

Gorgeous pictures, I really hope I get to get into photography soon.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: EvilYoda
Gorgeous pictures, I really hope I get to get into photography soon.

Why not now?

 

[PricklyPete]

Nice pics GT. I just picked up the 10-22 EFS from B&H myself about a month ago..might post some pics I got from this weekend tonight.

Overall the picture quality is great on the lense...but I'm not as happy with the build quality as I was hoping. The manual focus ring is dingy and the materials are not all that great. I gues it is pretty close to the 28-135 I have...but then again, that did break after having it 4 years (still haven't sent it in for servicing). I'm also comparing it to the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 I have, so that might be why I am being picky.

As for picture quality...I'm very happy with the lense.

Were you using a polarizer in that first shot?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Nice pics GT. I just picked up the 10-22 EFS from B&H myself about a month ago..might post some pics I got from this weekend tonight.

Overall the picture quality is great on the lense...but I'm not as happy with the build quality as I was hoping. The manual focus ring is dingy and the materials are not all that great. I gues it is pretty close to the 28-135 I have...but then again, that did break after having it 4 years (still haven't sent it in for servicing). I'm also comparing it to the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 I have, so that might be why I am being picky.

As for picture quality...I'm very happy with the lense.

Were you using a polarizer in that first shot?

The build qualiy is fine to me, then again, I don't own an "L" lens...yet.

Yes, I used a 7mm Hoya Circular Polarizer for all the (Utah) shots.

 

[Mark R]

Looks nice - but it's not a particularly flattering lens for portraits.

I'm tempted to get a 10-22 for my 350D, but I'm also considering a 70-200 2.8 - and can't afford both.

You say you used a 7mm polarizer filter - how does that work? Does it go on the rear element, or something?

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Mark R
Looks nice - but it's not a particularly flattering lens for portraits.

I'm tempted to get a 10-22 for my 350D, but I'm also considering a 70-200 2.8 - and can't afford both.

You say you used a 7mm polarizer filter - how does that work? Does it go on the rear element, or something?

screws on to front...he is just pointing out that it is 7mm because it is a "slim" model I believe. I have been using a "slim" B+W filter on mine and have been happy with it as well.

It is definitely not flattering for Portraits. If you are wanting portraits... a longer lense is much more friendly. The 70-200 2.8 is fun, but I have to admit I've been using my 10-22 EFS a LOT more than I do my 70-200 2.8. The 10-22 spends about as much time on the 20D as my 24-70 does...both provide great picture quality.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Mark R
Looks nice - but it's not a particularly flattering lens for portraits.

I'm tempted to get a 10-22 for my 350D, but I'm also considering a 70-200 2.8 - and can't afford both.

You say you used a 7mm polarizer filter - how does that work? Does it go on the rear element, or something?

Whoops, I meant 77mm

I've closely looked at the 70-200 as well, but it's simply too big and heavy for me to take with me all the time. My lenses/lens bag have to be extremely portable. I also don't do much tripod work.

The 10-22 is not a portrait lens. I use my Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for that.

My current lens plans:

Canon EFS 10-22 (A Keeper!)
Canon EFS 17-85 (For Sale)
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 (Sending to Tamron for calibration. Despite being a little soft at F2.8, it's a great lens for the money.)
Sigma 30mm F1.4 (To be purchased following the sale of my 17-85.)
Canon EF 24-105 F4 L (To be purchased within the next 6 months or so.)

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Nice pics GT. I just picked up the 10-22 EFS from B&H myself about a month ago..might post some pics I got from this weekend tonight.

Overall the picture quality is great on the lense...but I'm not as happy with the build quality as I was hoping. The manual focus ring is dingy and the materials are not all that great. I gues it is pretty close to the 28-135 I have...but then again, that did break after having it 4 years (still haven't sent it in for servicing). I'm also comparing it to the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 I have, so that might be why I am being picky.

As for picture quality...I'm very happy with the lense.

Were you using a polarizer in that first shot?

The build qualiy is fine to me, then again, I don't own an "L" lens...yet.

Yes, I used a 7mm Hoya Circular Polarizer for all the (Utah) shots.

I wasn't saying it was bad...I was just expecting more...especially on the focus ring. I had read some reviews where people had described it as an "L" in disguise...so that is possibly why I got my hopes up.

Have you purchased the hood for it yet? If so, did the hood make it difficult to use the polarizer?

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Mark R
Looks nice - but it's not a particularly flattering lens for portraits.

I'm tempted to get a 10-22 for my 350D, but I'm also considering a 70-200 2.8 - and can't afford both.

You say you used a 7mm polarizer filter - how does that work? Does it go on the rear element, or something?

Whoops, I meant 77mm

I've closely looked at the 70-200 as well, but it's simply too big and heavy for me to take with me all the time. My lenses/lens bag have to be extremely portable. I also don't do much tripod work.

The 10-22 is not a portrait lens. I use my Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for that.

My current lens plans:

Canon EFS 10-22 (A Keeper!)
Canon EFS 17-85 (For Sale)
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 (Sending to Tamron for calibration. Despite being a little soft at F2.8, it's a great lens for the money.)
Sigma 30mm F1.4 (To be purchased following the sale of my 17-85.)
Canon EF 24-105 F4 L (To be purchased within the next 6 months or so.)

I'm also looking forward to the 24-105, but I'm going to wait for final reviews/samples before I get my hopes up too much...it will not be a cheap for an f4 lense...but it will be pretty much the perfect walk around lense if it is anywhere near as sharp as the 70-200 f4 at f4.

I haven't seen enough on the Sigma 30mm F1.4, but I'm definitely interested in it as well. I've been pretty impressed with several of Sigma's EX line of lenses in the last few years.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Nice pics GT. I just picked up the 10-22 EFS from B&H myself about a month ago..might post some pics I got from this weekend tonight.

Overall the picture quality is great on the lense...but I'm not as happy with the build quality as I was hoping. The manual focus ring is dingy and the materials are not all that great. I gues it is pretty close to the 28-135 I have...but then again, that did break after having it 4 years (still haven't sent it in for servicing). I'm also comparing it to the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 I have, so that might be why I am being picky.

As for picture quality...I'm very happy with the lense.

Were you using a polarizer in that first shot?

The build qualiy is fine to me, then again, I don't own an "L" lens...yet.

Yes, I used a 7mm Hoya Circular Polarizer for all the (Utah) shots.

I wasn't saying it was bad...I was just expecting more...especially on the focus ring. I had read some reviews where people had described it as an "L" in disguise...so that is possibly why I got my hopes up.

Have you purchased the hood for it yet? If so, did the hood make it difficult to use the polarizer?

The hood is on the way, so I haven't used a hood and filter in combination.

What about the image quality? They say that is near "L" quality.

 

[kuk]

The Tamron 28-75mm was tempting me, but I decided to go with a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 that should be here next week.
I started out with digital, but now going with film. Bright and sturdy lens plus film body is much better (and cheaper) than a digital camera starter kit.