This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010UWA question
p.1 #1UWA question
I have a 20D and a 5D. I also have a 10-22mm EF-S that only fits on the 20D, and I am about to go to Yosemite where I want to get some good wide angle images. The options I see include:
a) use the 20D and the 10-22. The 20D while old still gets good images, although perhaps not up the the IQ and resolution of a 7D or the latest Rebels;
b) get a 7D or other new crop body and use the 10-22mm. The resolution of the newer bodies would really sing with the Canon 10-22mm. I'm not sure, after having xxD bodies, that I'd like the feel of the Rebels;
c) for about the same cost as a 7D, get a new 16-35 II for the 5D and sell (or just leave home, as they aren't worth much) the 20D and 10-22 (my only crop frame items). The 16-35 is f/2.8, not limited to crop bodies, and has that L build and handling.
How does the 10-22 on a crop body compare to 16-35mm II on FF?
Thx for any thoughts!
Keith
a) use the 20D and the 10-22. The 20D while old still gets good images, although perhaps not up the the IQ and resolution of a 7D or the latest Rebels;
b) get a 7D or other new crop body and use the 10-22mm. The resolution of the newer bodies would really sing with the Canon 10-22mm. I'm not sure, after having xxD bodies, that I'd like the feel of the Rebels;
c) for about the same cost as a 7D, get a new 16-35 II for the 5D and sell (or just leave home, as they aren't worth much) the 20D and 10-22 (my only crop frame items). The 16-35 is f/2.8, not limited to crop bodies, and has that L build and handling.
How does the 10-22 on a crop body compare to 16-35mm II on FF?
Thx for any thoughts!
Keith
Apr 16, 2010 at 03:24 PM
p.1 #2UWA question
beanpkk wrote:
How does the 10-22 on a crop body compare to 16-35mm II on FF?
The same from a focal range perspective. About the same from an IQ perspective, just not as fast an aperture.
How does the 10-22 on a crop body compare to 16-35mm II on FF?
The same from a focal range perspective. About the same from an IQ perspective, just not as fast an aperture.
Apr 16, 2010 at 03:27 PM
p.1 #3UWA question
The 16-35 II is a superior lens to the 10-22. All tests and comparisons I've seen put the 10-22 in the same ballpark as the 17-40 on FF--which is fine but not great, and definitely not anywhere near 16-35 II quality. The new 16-35 II is phenomenal.
However in your situation with two aging bodies I'd recommend the 7D replacement for the 20D. It will likely become your new favorite body. Once you get a taste of that beautiful screen and modern bells and whistles the 20D and 5D will sit in the cupboard. The 5D obviously shoots great photos, but in my opinion the 7D is superior in every way except that it's not full frame. Even it's high ISO noise is as good if not better than the 5D and the fact that you can shoot ISO 3200 and 6400 without any banding, whereas on the 5D 3200 bands just about always, make the 7D all around awesome. I like my 5D2 a little better, but the 7D far exceeded my expectations and will blow you away.
However in your situation with two aging bodies I'd recommend the 7D replacement for the 20D. It will likely become your new favorite body. Once you get a taste of that beautiful screen and modern bells and whistles the 20D and 5D will sit in the cupboard. The 5D obviously shoots great photos, but in my opinion the 7D is superior in every way except that it's not full frame. Even it's high ISO noise is as good if not better than the 5D and the fact that you can shoot ISO 3200 and 6400 without any banding, whereas on the 5D 3200 bands just about always, make the 7D all around awesome. I like my 5D2 a little better, but the 7D far exceeded my expectations and will blow you away.
Apr 16, 2010 at 03:38 PM
p.1 #4UWA question
johnnydanger wrote:
The 16-35 II is a superior lens to the 10-22. All tests and comparisons I've seen put the 10-22 in the same ballpark as the 17-40 on FF--which is fine but not great, and definitely not anywhere near 16-35 II quality. The new 16-35 II is phenomenal.
I think that within an hour or so we would find at least a few people who would dispute "phenomenal" for at least some standards. I would personally call it quite disappointing. It all depends on what you're comparing, and how high your bar for "phenomenal" is. For one, the "fine" 17-40 has noticeably less flare than the "phenomenal" 16-35/II. Maybe that matters to the OP.
On my list, the 16-35/II is only the 2nd L zoom in bad need of a replacement, after the 24-70.
The 16-35 II is a superior lens to the 10-22. All tests and comparisons I've seen put the 10-22 in the same ballpark as the 17-40 on FF--which is fine but not great, and definitely not anywhere near 16-35 II quality. The new 16-35 II is phenomenal.
I think that within an hour or so we would find at least a few people who would dispute "phenomenal" for at least some standards. I would personally call it quite disappointing. It all depends on what you're comparing, and how high your bar for "phenomenal" is. For one, the "fine" 17-40 has noticeably less flare than the "phenomenal" 16-35/II. Maybe that matters to the OP.
On my list, the 16-35/II is only the 2nd L zoom in bad need of a replacement, after the 24-70.
Apr 16, 2010 at 04:13 PM
p.1 #5UWA question
Are you sure your II isn't a III? 
Seriously, if your II beats the 24/II or the 17TSE, you either have crappy latter ones or a 16-35 on steroids.
As for flare:
http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/flare/0001-b.jpg
http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/flare/0002-b.jpg
Seriously, if your II beats the 24/II or the 17TSE, you either have crappy latter ones or a 16-35 on steroids.
As for flare:
http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/flare/0001-b.jpg
http://dpr.jirman.com/wides/flare/0002-b.jpg
Apr 16, 2010 at 05:16 PM
p.1 #6UWA question
I had a 17-40 and replaced it with 10-22. The latter has better corner sharpness and better flare resistance (checked on 40D). It also performs great on my 7D. Actually, it's so good that the only wide lens I consider right now is the 17/4 TS which can do things no other lens can.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Apr 16, 2010 at 05:48 PM
p.1 #7UWA question
I would get the 7D but if your happy with your current bodies and don't want to spend any money, sell the 10-22 and search for a canon mount Tokina 11-16mm. It is f2.8 like the 16-35 and will fit both cameras (works well at 15-16mm on the 5D). You may even have a few dollars to spend from the sale.
Apr 16, 2010 at 08:25 PM
p.1 #8UWA question
Second the Tokina, I am sorry I sold mine, aargh. I have a 7D and a 5D. Tokina was quite good at 16mm on full frame.
Apr 16, 2010 at 09:25 PM
p.1 #9UWA question
Regardless you like T2i bodies or not, the IQ is the same as the 7D. The 16-35 II is very sharp even on the crop sensor. As far as flare goes, sigma glass has pretty good flare control like the Pentax glass but I prefer the Canon L glass for its color over Sigma.
Apr 17, 2010 at 03:36 AM
p.1 #10UWA question
When are you going to Yosemite? Sigma's selling the 8-16mm lens at the end of this month I think, might be worth waiting for.
Apr 17, 2010 at 03:42 AM
p.1 #11UWA question
Thanks for all the responses! My Yosemite trip starts in about 10 days -- no chance to wait for the new Sigma 8-16, although I'd have a lot of interest in reading reviews etc when it comes out.
I'll have to go to my local camera store and get the feel of a T2i -- I haven't actually picked up a "Rebel" since the original. And people seem to like the Tokina 11-16 a lot. I'd like to try one (maybe rent it and try it out). The 16-35 II gets a wide range of reviews even on this thread. I wonder if that reflects QA problems on Canon's part. I get the impression that this is one of those Canon lenses that vary so much they're almost not worth messing with because you have to go through several of them to get a good one and even then you don't know what you've got. In the-digital-picture review of the 24 TS-E Bryan has examples of a number of Canon WA lenses for corner sharpness at various apertures. The 16-35 doesn't look as good as the 24 TS-E which really rocks (!!), but it doesn't look bad. But even Roger at LensRentals.com comes out lukewarm in his remarks about the 16-35 II although he says he isn't trying to do so.
Of the two upgrade options I listed, (get a 7D or get a 16-35 II), it sounds like the 7D is the preferred course. Or a T2i for half the price!
Thanks again all.
Keith
I'll have to go to my local camera store and get the feel of a T2i -- I haven't actually picked up a "Rebel" since the original. And people seem to like the Tokina 11-16 a lot. I'd like to try one (maybe rent it and try it out). The 16-35 II gets a wide range of reviews even on this thread. I wonder if that reflects QA problems on Canon's part. I get the impression that this is one of those Canon lenses that vary so much they're almost not worth messing with because you have to go through several of them to get a good one and even then you don't know what you've got. In the-digital-picture review of the 24 TS-E Bryan has examples of a number of Canon WA lenses for corner sharpness at various apertures. The 16-35 doesn't look as good as the 24 TS-E which really rocks (!!), but it doesn't look bad. But even Roger at LensRentals.com comes out lukewarm in his remarks about the 16-35 II although he says he isn't trying to do so.
Of the two upgrade options I listed, (get a 7D or get a 16-35 II), it sounds like the 7D is the preferred course. Or a T2i for half the price!
Thanks again all.
Keith
Apr 17, 2010 at 01:59 PM