L disease

[kennyahn]

I think I now have the dreaded L disease. Myth or not, I think I may

have it. I just bought a used EF 28-70mm f/2.8L because I wasn't

satisfied with my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 bought a week ago (returned

for store credit). I am floored by the sharpness. I'm so glad I took

the advice of the people in this forum. My EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is on

its way to the store for me to pickup.

 

By the end of this week, I will have (1) 50mm f/1.8, (2) 28-70mm

f/2.8L, and (3) 70-200mm f/2.8L. It's been 6 weeks since I switched

from point-and-shoot to DSLR and I never knew it would be this

gratifying. I really appreciate the insight and knowledge shared in

this forum.

 

I think I need to start saving for a wide angle lens since that's

where my focal range is lacking. I thought I wanted the EFS 10-22mm,

but I have heard this may not work on the "rumored next body" that

Canon is about to put out because it's supposed to be full framed.

Within the next 10 months, I do expect to upgrade my body from the

XT to 20D or the rumored body. Any thoughts on what I should do

about my wide angle situation?

[digitmstr]

Since you have been "infected" by the virus I am afraid nothing short of a 16-35L will do as a super-wide zoom.

 

There is no cure, sorry but, if it makes you feel any better...you are not alone :)

[roisin_murphy]

XT to 20D is no upgrade IMHO

[John Crowe]

You are just beginning to learn about composition and the flexibility of an SLR system and you are correct about thinking of a full frame DSLR in the not too distant future. So, for now try to avoid the expensive EF-S lenses. Since you are beginning I would recommend the EF-S 18-55mm lens. It is very inexpensive so if you end up selling in a couple of years you will not lose your shirt. It is actually very highly rated on this site and will get you the moderate wide angle range that will be most useful for you. If you do develop a taste for superwide photography then hopefully the full frame DSLR will be affordable by then. Good luck!

[bellavance]

From my experience, Canon lenses are very easy to sell, and you don't lose much when doing so.

 

I've therefore purchased the Canon 10-22 for my 20D and I use it a lot. It's an excellent lens, not much behind my 17-40/4L and 24-70/2.8L lenses, in terms of picture quality.

 

If you don't want an EF-S lens, then I suggest the 17-40/4L.

 

After two years with a 10D and a 20D, I'm starting to like the 1.6 crop factor, and wouldn't buy the future 5D anyway because it doesn't have a flash, which is sometimes useful when I don't carry my 580EX.

 

Pierre

[John Crowe]

The 16-35 is only a superwide on a full frame DSLR. On a 1.6x it is still only moderately wide and only a little wider than the 18-55. I would suggest this expensive lens only if you did not already have the 28-70 because of the expensive overlap.

 

 

If you wanted to switch lenses you could go 16-35, 50, and 70-200 without missing any necessary focal lengths. Then you would be ready for a full frame body.

[jim_larson1]

The "L" wide angle solutions are the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L.

 

The 10-22/EF-S is not as critical on a full frame body as is is on a cropped body such at the XT.

 

Frankly. . .I would suggest taking at least a few THOUSAND pictures before considering a body upgrade. The step change in quality from a 8mp 1.6 crop XT to a 8mp 1.6 crop 20D will be trivial.

 

Likewise. . .a swap from a 8mp 1.6crop XT to a 12mp FF camera may also be trivial if you shoot at F8 and produce 400kb jpegs.

[w_t1]

is cheaper. There are lots of posts bout L lenses, some stuff is true, some ain't. Have fun spending your money.

[athinkle]

I'd second the idea of the 17-40L. I'd get one myself but I'm broke as hell. Also, I agree that there is really no point in upgrading from the XT to the 20D. Canon put enough features on the XT that it eats into the 20D's territory. Hell, Canon's loss and your gain. By the way, WT, every hear about the fox and his sour grapes?

[pto189]

You don't sell your XT to buy the 20D period. Try the battery grip if you can with your 70-200. Don't be crazy about the digital body. Your next lens will be the 17-40 and use it as your walk around lens, then take 5000 pictures before buying the next lens. Spend more time to learn about digital photography instead of buying more lenses. I've tried the 10-22. It has near Canon L quality. I just don't like the EF-S.<p>L lenses are expensive for three reasons: optical superior, fast focus and built quality. If you can afford them, enjoy your life with the best gear. Otherwise, try non L or third party lenses. You still can take unforgettalbe pictures with your expert skills and talent anyway. If you think they are ridiculously expensive, try Nikkor, Zeiss or Leica.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Phillip (above) is correct. Go look at Leica M lens prices.

Just spend some time with all those US$2000+ lenses. Then look at Canon L lenses and

you'll feel like you're getting a bargain. If you're looking for an L wide lens without the

stigma of low cost you really (really) need the 14mm f2.8L.

Anyway, if you've just switched to dslr I'd say you have plenty of lenses right now. Slow

down a bit and enjoy and learn the lenses you have. But keep that 14 in the back of your

mind. <grin>

[andrew_ito]

Can't recommend the 14mm L. My buddy has one and I used it for a wedding. Not very

sharp for it's hefty price tag.

 

I can recommend the 10-22 and the 17-40L. I had both and liked the 10-22 so much

that I wound up selling the 17-40L. I'll probably pick up another one or get the 16-35L if

I get a 1.3x or full frame sensor.

 

Good call on that 28-70L. It's a drag that your Tamron 28-75 didn't work out for you.

Mine is a sharp copy but I still picked up a Canon 28-70L yesterday as well. The focus

speed is so much better and I'm not sure how well the Tamron will hold up on a full frame

sensor. Anyone try the Tammy on the 1Ds?

 

I've got a severe case of L disease as well. Just picked up a 70-200 f4L because I wanted a

travel lens instead of carting around the 70-200 IS. Now I'm after the 135L! I'm sick....

[steve_dunn2]

<p>If you move up to a full-frame body, whether the rumoured 5D or some other, you won't likely need anything as wide as a 10-22 anyway. The 10-22 exists because, on a 1.6x body, it gives you the equivalent of a 16-35, whereas all of Canon's other superwide zooms fail to qualify as superwide on a 1.6x body. So if you move to a full-frame body, just get the 16-35/2.8L USM (or the 17-40/4L USM). Some people need to go wider than that, but the vast majority don't, so the lack of the 10-22 ought not to be a concern. Or just get the 10-22, and if you move up to full-frame, sell it; you will lose some money on this, since used goods almost invariably sell for less than new goods, but it appears that you are not lacking for money so that may not be a concern.</p>

 

<p>I disagree with those who say the 20D is not an upgrade from the XT; it is a better camera, and therefore constitutes an upgrade. But it's not a massively better camera, and therefore constitutes a relatively minor upgrade, so I do echo the point about wondering why you plan on doing this. What ability does the 20D have, and the XT lack, that you need? Unless you can clearly articulate why this is necessary, or if not necessary then at least desirable and the best possible use of your money, then perhaps you ought to stick with the XT and spend the money elsewhere. More lenses, a tripod, a monopod, a photography course, a flash unit, an upgrade to the computer you use to process your photos, a trip to somewhere you've always wanted to shoot; there are lots of possibilities.</p>

[dogbert]

How to cure yourself? Go and see an original Ansel Adams print and marvel at the quality he achieved which is well beyond anything ever done with an L zoom, Leica, Nikon, 35 mm or digital. Realise he did this with a 1930's camera which would be regarded as junk today.

 

Then you realise that taking great photos has very little, if anything to do with the equipment.

 

Photoheads like the people in this forum marvel at sharpness and crave equipment. But most of the best work I see on photonet could have been taken with anything and reflects the photogrpaher's knowledge, experience, and artistry far more than the equipment that was used.

[Ian Taylor]

Geoff's right.

 

It ain't about the gear, it's about 'seeing' first and foremost. This obsession with the latest L glass is definitely a "disease".

 

The cure? One body, one prime.

[mike t.]

Choose your path. You can acquire images. Or you can acquire equipment. Whick path do you think makes a better photographer?

 

Kenny, you're buying tools and you've got more money than knowledge. Pause, breathe deeply, go shoot 10,000 frames and then you'll know more about what equipment you need.

 

Don't listen to biased opinions about lenses. Go form your own by trial.

 

Good luck!

[roisin_murphy]

but canon does need the money from snobs for their R&D :)

[kennyahn]

Michael, I think you are absolutely right. I really DO have more money than knowledge for sure. I'm not trying to buy myself photography skills. I just wanted some good equipment to set as my base as I started learning photography more.

 

I got a decent camera body, a few good lenses, a good monopod, and some books on Photoshop, composition, and lighting. I'm thinking about taking a class or two on photography. And yes, I will continue to take hundreds of pictures every weekend to form my own thoughts. It's just nice to hear the thoughts of those that are more skilled than I am. Thanks everyone for fanning the flame of my excitement in photography.

 

I'm thankful for the photo-heads as much as the level-heads for different reasons.

[bens]

I'm looking forward to your posting pictures instead of another forum posting about your L lenses.

[mark u]

I'd have to guess that there could be quite a few reduced image circle ultra wides being sold off by upgraders to full frame. Resale prices may not be so good in a climate where their utility is falling in Canon mount.

[ky2]

Ok. Here's a thing for you to chew on:

My 10-22 on my 20D performs better than the 16-35/2.8 on my 1Ds, at the 35mm-FOV-equivalent of 16mm. In fact, I haven't yet seen a as good a wide-angle-zoom lens as my 10-22 (Marc, if you're reading-- then thanks).

[astcell]

Careful, I thought I was over it with the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200IS. Then I got the 85/1.2. OUCH.

 

Now I want only prime L lenses and no zooms. Somebody help me!

[andrew robertson]

Just buy some non-L prime lenses and you'll be cured. They generally blow away L zooms,

are smaller, cheaper, lighter, and let in more light.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Andrew I couldn't agree more with you. More primes and fewer zooms. I think

photographers have this concept that they need to cover all the angles. It's just not true.

Bill Garrett, who use to be editor of <I>National Geographic</I> magazine use to say that

all a

photojournalist needed was a Leica M and a 28 & 50mm lenses. One poster above

suggested one camera and one prime. David Alan Harvey, Magnum photographer, mostly

shoots with just an M Leica and a 35mm. Keeping it simple is an excellent way to shoot.

After all it's the photographs that are important and NOT the equipment. (I'll stand back

and duck now. grin )

[james_castagno]

Ansel Adams used an 8X10 view camera and had boundless patience, I could never walk around all day and take 3 pictures.