steve_t wrote:
The 17-40 is however a more usefull general purpous lens (27-64 equivalent), the 10-22 gives you an effective 16-35. If you can manage it I'd suggest keeping both.
the 17-40 past 24mm is not very usefull general purpous because overlaps other faster zooms.
I thought about it Steve however I can't justify the cost. My plan was to pick up a Tamron 28-75 to compensate for the longer reach of the 17-40L. What do you think?
speedbrakesout wrote:
I thought about it Steve however I can't justify the cost. My plan was to pick up a Tamron 28-75 to compensate for the longer reach of the 17-40L. What do you think?
Lalfer wrote:
the 17-40 past 24mm is not very usefull general purpous because overlaps other faster zooms.
24-70L 2.8
28-75 2.8 Tamron
Edited by Lalfer on May 24, 2005 at 07:41 AM GMT
OVERLAP IS NOT BAD. When will people learn this. The fewer changes of lens on a DSLR the better and an effective 28-70 (or 27-64 in this case) is a nice range to work with, for me at least. The trick is finding a set of lenses that YOU (not anyone else) feel comfortable with and you don't continualy find yourself on the borderline of wanting to change between. If you find the 10-22 puts you in this position then keep the 17-40 and save the 10-22 for special occasions.
steve_t wrote:
OVERLAP IS NOT BAD. When will people learn this. The fewer changes of lens on a DSLR the better and an effective 28-70 (or 27-64 in this case) is a nice range to work with, for me at least. The trick is finding a set of lenses that YOU (not anyone else) feel comfortable with and you don't continualy find yourself on the borderline of wanting to change between. If you find the 10-22 puts you in this position then keep the 17-40 and save the 10-22 for special occasions.
I wonder how the prime guys do?
Larry Carter................
oh they move their feet..............................)
speedbrakesout wrote:
I thought about it Steve however I can't justify the cost. My plan was to pick up a Tamron 28-75 to compensate for the longer reach of the 17-40L. What do you think?
Thanks,
Nick
The Tamron is indeed a nice lens, I can personaly recommend it, BUT as noted, it's too long at the wide end to be a good GP lens (it's rather good as a potrait lens and not bad at macro, but just not wide enough for most people to leave as a default lens on the camera).
If you must save money then sell the 17-40 and buy 2 Tamrons, the 17-35 and the 28-75.
steve_t wrote:
The Tamron is indeed a nice lens, I can personaly recommend it, BUT as noted, it's too long at the wide end to be a good GP lens (it's rather good as a potrait lens and not bad at macro, but just not wide enough for most people to leave as a default lens on the camera).
If you must save money then sell the 17-40 and buy 2 Tamrons, the 17-35 and the 28-75.
why?
he can have 12-24 Tokina and a 28-75 2.8 Tamron...........
come on 17 is not wide enough w/ 1.6 crop!!!!!
he can have 12-24 Tokina and a 28-75 2.8 Tamron...........
come on 17 is not wide enough w/ 1.6 crop!!!!!
I'm not suggesting that he bin the 10-22 (I've got a 12-24 on order myself), but that it's more specialised than the 17-35/17-40 and less usefull for walk-arround use.
10-22+17-35+28-75 is about the same cost as
10-22+17-40L
hence the comment on cost.
Lalfer wrote:
there is no need keeping a 17-40 when you have a 10-22 or 12-24.....
from there on you go 2.8 these are zooms.....
And as I said, it's a personal choice and related to how comfortable the photographer is with the ranges of individual lenses. For general use I like the range of the 17-40, some like the 28-75, others the 70-200. My simple advice is ignore all this talk of overlap and range and go with what you're comfortable with. Keep the 17-40 until you decide that you're happy without it, not when the numbers say that you don't need it.
Wow this thread has grown exponantially since my last post! Thanks Steve and Lalfer Honestly I find myself using the wider end of my 17-40L a lot more than the 40 end. I'm a wide-angle nut, the 10-22 could well become my walk around lens.
)
Honestly I find myself using the wider end of my 17-40L a lot more than the 40 end. I'm a wide-angle nut, the 10-22 could well become my walk around lens.