Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens Vs Tokina 11-16 vs Bower vs Canon 10-22Mm?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by simon_sutcliffe, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. Hi
    I am a Beginner and shooting with the standard kit lens that came on my t1i, I am on a pretty tight budget. and I was wondering if the which lens would be best and if I should spring for an L lens. I would like to shoot landscape but it would also function as a walk around lens/travel lens I am more intrested in wide angle. I am willing to use a prime lens. Any sugestions.
     
  2. The 17-40 won't be too wide on your camera. The Tokina has a limited zoom range. The Bower I've never head of except for mirror telephoto lenses, and they have a bad reputation. The canon 10-22 is L glass without the red ring. I'd call it between the Tokina and the Canon; I have the 10-22 and it's a fine lens. I've never used the Tokina, but it has a decent following.
     
  3. Hello Simon: Being a beginner on a tight budget, I would suggest you keep using the kit lens and work with it for another year before thinking about upgrades. Don't make the novice mistake of thinking you need a bag full of fancy lenses to make good pictures. Stopped down a couple of stops, the kit lens is pretty good and it covers nicely the range of subjects you are interested in. As you gain experience in your photography, you can be learning and saving money and, in time, you will know better yourself what direction to take on a new lens acquisition.
     
  4. Google ef 50mm f1.8 lens.
     
  5. The Canon 10-22 is sharp, variable aperture, and has a longer zoom range. The Tokina 11-16 is exceptionally sharp, f/2.8 constant aperture, but with a short zoom range.
    I chose the Tokina for use with my 7D for maximum sharpness and fine detail, edge-to-edge, in large landscape prints. But the Canon is very good in its own right, and unless you're pushing hard (i.e. 24" and 30" prints) you might not see the difference.
     
  6. I own the Tokina 11-16 and the Canon 17-40. Tokina is superb, but has a very small focal range, not versatile enough as a walk around. The Canon has a very good focal range, but the aperture (f/4) is not wide enough for me. Also, i feel the colors of the 17-40 aren't rich enough.
    I have used the Canon 10-22 and, although its a good lens, I would buy the Tokina instead.
    I have no clue of the Bower brand you mentioned.
    In my opinion, I'd recommend you to practice for a couple of months with your kit lens; a year with only one very-mediocre lens can be painful, like Louis suggested. Once you know how to handle your camera well, get the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 as a walk-around lens.
    Another very good suggestion was Daniel Flather's, the Canon 50 f/1.8 costs 100 bucks and it delivers great value for your money.
     
  7. The 11-16 and 10-22 lenses can be tricky to use - you need to be very careful about composition to make an interesting photo. Of the lenses you mention I would choose the 17-40. But having said that I agree with others who say that the 15-55 IS kit lens is a good lens and if you add the 50mm f1.8 for low light you will have a decent set of focal lengths that will probably suit you for some time.
     
  8. The 10-22 is the only serious wide lens I have it truly is a L glass without the label and if you need to justify the money do like I did by it at amazon for 12 months same as cash it was a lot easier to make affordable, I will post some samples , same old saying a picture is truly worth at least 700 dollars for a good lens. To be honest I bought it for the weddings I shoot it seems like there is always 15 in a adding party in a church that is 30 foot wide and this lens works perfectly , its has some shadow at 10 if you are only focusing on one very close shot of one person, but thats rare, for outside it adds lots of color and you can see it in the picture, I'll post a few,if you want ill send you to some bigger jpegs,
     
  9. The 10-22 is probably too wide for a general walk around lens, but it will compliment your 18-55 kit lens for landscapes very well.
    If money is a factor, consider the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, I have this lens, and it's great for landscapes.
     
  10. ++ Louis. My suggestion is that you buy nothing yet. The kit lens is decent. Use it until you have a list of things you can't do with it and that you want to do often. That will tell you what you should consider. E.g., will you be shooting mostly landscapes where you want to go wider and don't need a fast lens? or do you want to do street candids in low light? Or whatever. once you know that, you can post that here, and people can offer suggestions for lenses that would help.
    As for buying L glass: my suggestion it to forget about it for now. There is lots of very fine glass that is not L, and if you are a beginner, you are probably better off gradually buying a variety of equipment as you need it, rather than investing a very large amount of money in a single lens. Not to say that L lenses are not eventually worth it in some cases, but buying a Strad won't get you to Carnegie Hall. I just hung four 11*14s in a show, one shot with the 100mm L macro (a truly spectacular lens, currently $944) and three shot with an EF-S 60mm macro ($422). The two that generated the most buzz were both taken with the cheaper lens. (You can see them here: http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Other/Brookline-exhibit/13544935_JKkpZ#1114530839_y9GXE)
    So all in all: take it slowly. Get practice, figure out what you really NEED, and then post questions about lenses for that need. Sometimes, depending on what you need, people will come up with relatively inexpensive options. Sometimes, for other purposes, there will be more reason to spend a lot.
     
  11. The 10-22 is the only serious wide lens I have it truly is a L glass without the label and if you need to justify the money do like I did by it at amazon for 12 months same as cash it was a lot easier to make affordable, I will post some samples , same old saying a picture is truly worth at least 700 dollars for a good lens. To be honest I bought it for the weddings I shoot it seems like there is always 15 in a adding party in a church that is 30 foot wide and this lens works perfectly , its has some shadow at 10 if you are only focusing on one very close shot of one person, but thats rare, for outside it adds lots of color and you can see it in the picture, I'll post a few,if you want ill send you to some bigger jpegs,
     
  12. I just saw the Tokina 16.5-135 which seems like a good starter that covers most of my needs, or the Canon 18-135. I might buy the 50mm f/1.8 and then wait awhile to see what type of shooting I like the most
     
  13. I don't get it. Do you want wider AoV or not? If so, get the 10-22 or 11-16. If not, 17-55/2.8 IS (for the aperture) or 15-85 IS (for the range) are your best alternatives. Hypezooms like the ones you've just mentioned will likely be disappointing WRT IQ.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  14. I use the 11-16/2.8 and really like it, but I bought it because I need the wider aperture for lowlight events. Unless you do this too (by the sounds of it you don't) I'd go with something that has a greater range. I wouldn't go for the Canon L lens, simply because of the cost and you're a beginner - you'd find the same satisfaction from something cheaper I think. I've never known anyone pick up a UWA and be disappointed in honesty, non of them are really bad, if you're using middle apertures and composing effectively, almost everyone seems to have "fun" with them. Checkout the Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 10-24, I think you'd be very happy with any of those (as would I).
     
  15. I have been lurking these forums quite a bit and couldn't agree more with Erwin, Dan, and Louis on this matter. Use your kit lens for awhile. I fell into the "gotta have that lens" trap and it was a costly whim. Sage advice to see what your needs are before going at it. To actually answer your question, were I to have to choose again ... I'd get the 17-40L, it's range suits me better.
    After returning, or selling all the random lenses I had bought (many with overlapping focal lengths) I settled on just a couple. I still keep my 28-135mm kit lens as my walk around (one day it will be replaced with the 24-105L glass). It's not a bad lens at all for being labeled "kit", it works on my 40D, and will one day work on a full-frame if I go that way. I have the nifty-fifty in my bag because it's amazing for low light and high quality, and I have the 35mm f/2, which I find to be a nice addition to my bag when I need a 'normal' fixed-focal length on my sub-frame and lighter weight.
    I owned the Canon 10-22 for a time, and loved the wide angle on my 40D. Even still, I recently sold it. I discovered, personally, my landscape shots were rarely that wide, and it was something that got left in the house, or hotel room to save weight in my bag. Of my 20 or 30,000 captures, I probably had 50 at 10mm, and another 50 at the other lengths that lens would reach. It wasn't right for me but it's an amazing lens for those who it is right for.
    Best of luck, friend!
    00Xp8U-309715684.jpg
     
  16. Louis... You should be getting very-good imagery within the confines of the kit lens' apertures and focal range. If you are and wish to broaden your capabilities, perhaps another lens might be a good choice. However if you are not getting consistently very-good images, your technique is at fault.
    I suggest that you work at getting the utmost out of your kit lens (which is really a pretty decent lens) and only then upgrade to another lens.
     
  17. I think your mention of tight budget is the limiting factor.
    I'm a big believer in trying out different lenses and getting good glass.... but that can run into some money.
    Check out Lensrentals.com for costs of renting as an option to explore. They also have some good deals on used lenses they have rented.
    For shooting "wider" with what you have learn about shooting panoramic and stitching. It is probably the most affordable "wide" there is.
    Regards,
    Richard
     

Share This Page