Paralysis of Analysis, Lens choices

[gary w. graley]

Paralysis of Analysis<br>

<br>

I seem to have this when it comes to choosing the lens I wish to buy!

<br>

<br>

With so many to choose from and varied reports on each, it makes it

daunting to<br>

Say the least! Funds are always a limiting factor, so I don?t make a

blanket decision<br>

To just buy ?L? lenses and be done with it. And I am not prone to

buying third party<br>

Lenses either. <br>

<br>

My shooting is widely varied and like a lot of us, want to carry the

minimum that will cover<br>

The maximum in usefulness and sharpness. <br>

<br>

Canon EOS 20D body with battery grip, my list of choices so far

consist of; <br>

<br>

10-22mm<br>

<br>

17-85mm<br>

<br>

24-70mm<br>

<br>

28-135mm<br>

<br>

From that list, I?m leaning towards getting two lenses, the 10-22 and

the 28-135 <br>

<br>

My current collection of glass is; <br>

<br>

24mm<br>

35mm<br>

50mm<br>

85mm<br>

35-135mm<br>

100-300<br>

<br>

I?m trying to sell the 35-135 but being an older lens, it will be a

tough sale, asking $100 shipped<br>

<br>

So my question, finally getting to it, besides whining about

decisions, those that have the 10-22mm<br>

Do you find that you use it a lot or is it too much a specialty lens?

<br>

Whining over for now<br>

Thanks<br>

G2

[dogbert]

I have a lens in the 12-24 range as well as a 28-135 IS, but I aslo have an 18-50f2.8 Sigma EX as my main lens. You say your shooting is widely varied. If you get the two lenses you are leaning towards, I supsect you will be changing lenses a lot, as a lot of the action in SLR photography (travel, people, objects, etc) occcurs in the 28-40 range (35 mm equivalent) which is roughly where you have you gap. So ask yourself will you mind changing lenses frequently?

 

The 10-22 would be a specialty lens for those the have down to about 18 mm covered, but IMO it would be very useful if you other lens only goes down to 28 mm, which is actually not very wide at all on a 1.6 DSLR.

[witolda_maruszewska]

Gary,

 

How much do you need the wide focal lengths? That will be the determining factor in which lens(es) you will choose. I know you've already a few possibilities in mind, but here's a couple of alternatives you might want to consider.

 

If you really don't need the wide end and are thinking of a "normal" zoom then how about looking for a used 28-70L if funds are tight - this lens is a quality performer and well worth getting. Team this up with a 20 mm prime for those "wider" moments and you have a nice combination that will complement what you already have.

 

The alternative, if you want quality but at the wide end of the range, you could either go for a new 17-40 f4 or if lens speed is important to you, a used 17-35 or 16-35 f1.8 depending on your budget. At the longer end of the range you are nicely served by your current 50 and 85 primes IMHO.

[jim_larson1]

How happy are you with your current lenses?

 

I would consider replacing the 100-300 with a 70-200/4L.

 

I would only buy the 10-22 if you feel you need wider than the 24 you have now. If you need wider than 24, get the 10-22 without a second thought.

 

I fear you may be disappointed by the quality of the 28-135/IS, but it is a very valid choice considering your other glass.

 

The 24-70/2.8L is the most expensive lens on your list. . and you have the range covered by faster primes. I would shy away. . .maybe consider the 17-40/4L instead.

[gary w. graley]

Happiness is subjective of course, but my favourite lens<BR>

is the 85mm and recently with the 20D, I'm using the 35mm a lot<BR>

for most of my shots, very handy! I did use the 35-135 for some<BR>

and want to get a wider zoom lens. I just sold the 35-135 so that<BR>

adds a little cash to the pot to pick a lens.<BR>

The 24mm used to be a favourite but then I've not had the 20D very<BR>

long, just last Friday is when it arrived, the lenses I've had for<BR>

some time now though for use on my 1n and 620 film bodies.<BR>

Rarely use the 100-300mm and have thought to sell that off as well.<BR>

The 50mm is one I rarely used<BR>

Thanks for the suggestions, I need to make a decision soon, in light <BR>the zoom selling.

<BR>G2

[mark u]

I think that given your array of full frame lenses, and the fact that you make use of your 24mm on film maybe you should consider the Sigma 15-30, which will give you the same angle of view at the wide end and cover up to 48mm equivalent at its longer end, as well as being a lens you can use on your film bodies should you so choose (and thus give you the chance to evaluate whether you actually want something wider for your 20D as well). I'd leave the choice of anything wider for now, as there are several new lenses due to reach the market in the next few months which might be worth taking into consideration.

 

You may find that you end up putting your 24mm on your for sale list despite currently being a favourite lens, since it is the focal length which benefits least from having a wide aperture. You will probably want to keep your other fast primes for portrait and low light work. I think I'd skip the 17-85, and go for a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di instead, which is a much better lens optically (a worthy substitute for a 24-70 L and a step up from a 28-135) and complements the 15-30. Again, it can be used with your film bodies. Add a Canon 70-200 f/4 and 1.4xTC (a Tamron works well and is cheaper than the Canon TC), and you can sell the 100-300 as well.

[carlos_santos2]

Wide angle rocks! Definitely go for it. As Petteri said "telephoto is for cowards" (<flame war coming on I can feel it! :) :) )

 

 

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html

 

Like Petteri I am a big fan of Sigma EX...

 

You haven't included the Tamron 28-75 XR Di, Sigma 24-70 Macro EX, both are outstanding lenses worth considering (my Sigma in particular pretty well beat the 24-70L I was looking at buying..the Tamron 28-75 is not far behind).

 

See this thread:

http://www.dphoto.us/forum/showthread.php?p=24441#post24441

 

And these pix:

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470

 

In the wide angle range, the 10-22 is said to be good, look at the Sigma 12-24 as well.

 

Don't shy away from 3rd party (true, they don't "keep their value as well", but we're not talking equity investments here...these are only tools....a means to an end, if you're using them as much as you're supposed to be, they will likely depreciate no matter what brand you buy.).

 

These days third party high-end lenses (Sigma EX, Tamron XR Di) are outstanding by any image-quality standard (price aside)...

 

Both Sigma 24-70, 12-24, and the Tamron 28-75 above will handily beat the Canon 28-135 which is a medium-grade consumer lens who's picture quality imho leaves a lot to be desired (yes I *do* own a 28-135...it sits unused most of the time only when I'm on vacation do I really take it out).

 

-cs

[phyrpowr]

If you have a friendly camera store that will let you take the lenses outside and test them on a tripod, do so

 

My version of the Canon 28-135 IS is the equal to the Tamron 28-75 and the Sigma 24-70 that I personally tested, PSd, and printed, the Tamron being VERY disappointing, given the generally good reviews it's received on the .net

 

Quality control on the non"L" and 3d party lenses seems to be pretty variable. I also tried two samples of the 17-85 IS, and they were both very soft off the center

 

The Canon 24-70 "L" seems to be almost a lock for guaranteeing you'll get a good one out of the box. I rarely shoot really wide angle, but got the Canon 10-22 on approval, and it was so good I kept it and plan to do more WA stuff, but it's pricey

[grant g]

10-22mm: I love this lens and it gets lots of use for landscapes. Also decent for architecture IMO. "L" price and image quality, but consumer build.

 

17-85mm: Good travel/walkaround lens. Should be $410 not $5-600 I get better pictures from the kit 18-55 and a cheap flimsy tripod. 85mm/5.6 is a joke. I would have prefered constant f/4 at $700 or f/2.8-4 at $900

 

24-70mm: It's a beast but often in my bag or on the camera. Not for hiking!

 

28-135mm: Tested one...and passed on it. Decent for travel if the focal lengths suit you better than the 17-85.

[digitmstr]

Just get these two:

 

10-22

 

24-70L

 

the rest is redundant, too much overlap and no gain in quality of flexibility. These two lenses will cover the most situations in which a zoom is used (other than long-reach shoots). If you have the kit lens you can use that one for those "point & shoot" outings.

 

Your primes cover the rest though, if I were you I'd invest in a 200 f/2.8L and/or a 300 f/4L as well.

[gary w. graley]

That's a good set I think as well, but the $ would kill me right now... <br>

I've used Tokina lenses before with good results but that was a long time ago, on my old Minolta system and not the EOS system. <br>I do shy away from 3rd party but may end up getting some thing from them, more research is in order I think.<br>This is why I choose the title as I did, when researching you can reach a point where you end up frozen, not able to make a decision, but as I have some lenses that will hold me over, it's not super critical that I make my move right now. As I found I didn't use the 35-135mm zoom much before, I remember that it was dark for a lot of the shots I wanted to do, so I left it in the bag, maybe get the 10-22mm for now and work/save for the 24-70 at a later time.<br>Thanks all, appreciate your input! Will give all those listed above some research and try to figure out from various reviews what falls out as dogs to avoid and what to put in my check further.<br>G2

[pbizarro]

I think you only need to use what you already have. You already have a high quality collection of primes, so put it to good use.

[yakim_peled1]

One lens: 10-22. Two lenses: 10-22 + 70-200/4 (sell the zooms). HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[gary w. graley]

Well I settled on the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 which should be enroute tonight I hope! From Adorama, thanks guys for your insights and help.<BR>

G2