This topic is in the 2005 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 200510mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #110mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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.
24-70L 2.8
28-75 2.8 Tamron
Edited by Lalfer on May 24, 2005 at 07:41 AM GMT
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.
24-70L 2.8
28-75 2.8 Tamron
Edited by Lalfer on May 24, 2005 at 07:41 AM GMT
May 24, 2005 at 01:39 AM
p.2 #210mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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
Thanks,
Nick
May 24, 2005 at 01:40 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #310mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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
you are right on the money and you have a 2.8
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
you are right on the money and you have a 2.8
May 24, 2005 at 01:43 AM
p.2 #410mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
Yep! This extra stop would be most welcomed.
Ahhh and all that with a 10mm ...I'm drooling...
Ahhh and all that with a 10mm ...I'm drooling...
May 24, 2005 at 01:49 AM
p.2 #510mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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
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.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.
May 24, 2005 at 01:54 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #610mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
besides you can always buy another 17-40...... 
if you have a 1.3 crop or full frame.
if you have a 1.3 crop or full frame.
May 24, 2005 at 01:55 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #710mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
steve_t 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 GMTOVERLAP 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..............................
)
Lalfer wrote
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.24-70L 2.8
28-75 2.8 Tamron
Edited by Lalfer on May 24, 2005 at 07:41 AM GMT
I wonder how the prime guys do?
Larry Carter................
oh they move their feet..............................
)May 24, 2005 at 01:57 AM
p.2 #810mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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.
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.
May 24, 2005 at 02:01 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #910mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
steve_t wrote:
Thanks,
NickThe 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!!!!!
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
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!!!!!
May 24, 2005 at 02:03 AM
p.2 #1010mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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 GMTOVERLAP 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..............................)
And clean their sensors more often. Moving feet isn't always posible and it doesn't change perspective, only FOV
steve_t wrote
Lalfer wrote
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.24-70L 2.8
28-75 2.8 Tamron
Edited by Lalfer on May 24, 2005 at 07:41 AM GMT
Larry Carter................
oh they move their feet..............................
)And clean their sensors more often. Moving feet isn't always posible and it doesn't change perspective, only FOV
May 24, 2005 at 02:04 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #1110mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
http://www.canon-20d.com/lenscompare/wide/compare.jpg
17 is very close to 18mm
17 is very close to 18mm
May 24, 2005 at 02:05 AM
p.2 #1210mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
Lalfer wrote:
Thanks,
NickThe 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!!!!!
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.
steve_t wrote
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
If you must save money then sell the 17-40 and buy 2 Tamrons, the 17-35 and the 28-75.
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.
May 24, 2005 at 02:09 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #1310mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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.....
from there on you go 2.8 these are zooms.....
May 24, 2005 at 02:12 AM
p.2 #1410mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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.
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.
May 24, 2005 at 02:29 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #1510mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
I'm glad I'm not in wheelchair.........and have zooms
so how many zooms I need from 10mm to 500mm?
never mind primes....
so how many zooms I need from 10mm to 500mm?
never mind primes....
May 24, 2005 at 02:33 AM
p.2 #1610mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
Lalfer wrote:
so how many zooms I need from 10mm to 500mm?
never mind primes....
Minimum of 3 as best as I can figure. Which 3 I leave as an exorcise for you.
so how many zooms I need from 10mm to 500mm?
never mind primes....
Minimum of 3 as best as I can figure. Which 3 I leave as an exorcise for you.
May 24, 2005 at 03:33 AM
Lalfer
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #1710mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
steve_t wrote:
never mind primes....Minimum of 3 as best as I can figure. Which 3 I leave as an exorcise for you.
Lalfer wrote
so how many zooms I need from 10mm to 500mm?never mind primes....
May 24, 2005 at 03:44 AM
p.2 #1810mm Vs 17mm FOV difference
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.May 24, 2005 at 08:47 AM