What lens? Canon related-wide angle and telephoto

[dana_childs]

<p >Here is my equipment....</p>

<p >Camera bodies:</p>

<p >Film: Canon Elan II</p>

<p >Digital: Canon Rebel xti and 40D</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Lenses (all Canon):</p>

<p >EFS: 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 </p>

<p >60 f/2.8 macro </p>

<p >EF: 50 f/1.8 </p>

<p >28-80 f/3.5-5.6</p>

<p >28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS </p>

<p >100-300 f/4.5-5.6</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have vacillated for quite some time on what lenses to add to my collection because there are some considerations that I need to take into account that some of the lenses I would consider then limit me. Although I don't shoot film that often, I found that when I got back into it, how much I missed it and enjoyed it and that if I'm going to add lenses to my collection, I'd like the versatility of having a lens that can be used on my film camera. This makes looking at EFS lenses tricky. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I want a wide-angle lens and I want a better telephoto zoom lens. I do use my 100-300 lens quite a bit, but as one would expect, it's not a great lens, it's not sharp by any means and of course once you've been spoiled by IS, it's difficult to imagine not being without it. I use my 28-135 lens for the most part because of its range and naturally it has IS. I have considered one of the 70-200 L series lens so many times but constantly I stop myself from buying it because when I used my 100-300 I find myself always on the 300 end...so if I buy the 70-200, aren't I going to miss the 200-300? I have looked at the 100-400 but it is SO pricey, too much for me to consider right now and it really is heavy. And back to the 70-200 lenses...again price...70-200 f/4 non IS vs. IS...70-200 f/2.8 non IS. The only one I really considered because it's close to a comfortable price for me was the 70-200 f/4 non IS. But am I going to be happy considering all the factors above (just because it's an L series lens)? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And on to the wide angle (zoom) lens...because of the 1.6 crop factor, it seems like for me to get what I'd really like for versatility since I do have a kit lens that is 18-55 and that isn't wide at all, I'd have to consider an aftermarket lens such as Tamron or Tokina which has the best offerings or write-ups. There is the Canon 10-22, but reviews just seem to be so-so and it's still pricey for a lens I think I would only use some of the time (in comparison to the telephoto lens that I would use more often to justify that cost). There is the Canon 17-40 L series, but what am I gaining in comparison to the 18-55 (obviously better lens)...but as far as wide angle lens, not much right? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now I realize some of you may say sell some of those lenses to upgrade, but I also keep them because I know I'll never be able to get enough money out of them for it to be worthwhile. Plus...if I decided to sell one of those cameras, it will be worth more if I can sell a lens or two with it. As far as the rebel xti goes...I am considering converting that to an infrared camera...either that or sell it (with the kit lens and bag it came with). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So that is my dilemma and I appreciate the feedback based on the film body to digital camera body and versatility of lenses. </p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>The ef-s 10-22 is THE best in its class of all brands for aps-c. My copy is actually just as good, if not better(on a 7D not 40D) than the ef 17-40 on a FF body when I test for corner sharpness by printing a 16x20. I don't know which reviews call it so-so, because all the ones I have read rave about it.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>As Angel says, the EF-S 10-22 has a stellar reputation, but it's unfortunately useless on your Elan.</p>

<p>As for the telephoto end, the 70-200/4 IS L is reportedly sharper than the non-IS version, and IS is a very useful feature on longer lenses. But if you tend to use focal lengths longer than 200mm, and can't afford the 100-400 L, perhaps you should consider one of the slower telephoto L primes, which are cheaper, lighter, and have better image quality than the zoom.</p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>Add me to the group that says the 10-22 is a wonderful lens. </p>

<p>I have the 100-400 (upgraded from an old 75-300) and I don't think I would have been happy with the 70-200 for the same reason you stated--I couldn't have taken the step back in focal length. It is pricey and it is heavy, but it's also very versatile and in the end, that's what sold me. I love it and use it quite a bit.</p>

[dana_childs]

<p>I have heard good reviews and so-so reviews on the 10-22...mostly that there are other lenses (aftermarket) that will give you even better range for less money. And again, there's still the issue that if I bought that lens, I would never be able to use it on my film camera and that is a consideration for me.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>One of the widest zoom lens that would mount on your film body would be the Sigma 12-24 mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM, but it is not cheap.</p>

<p>There is an argument for the Sigma 10-20 also, quite aside from its lower price. It will, unlike the Canon lens, actually mount on your Elan, but it will only really work without vignetting on the two APS-C cameras.</p>

[dana_childs]

<p>I have looked at the Tamron AF 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD or the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. The Tokina is just as pricey (well maybe a little less but not much) as the Canon 10-22, but the aperture on the Tokina is definitely better. I look at prices on amazon and reviews so this is where I get reviews that are 50/50 regarding the Canon. Some love it and some just say you can get one of these other aftermarkets for less and be just as satisfied. Some remark the Canon is soft on the edges. Both the Tamron and Tokina of course have the same issue where it would not work on my film camera. </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>Dana, I agree with your findings and comments on the wide angle zooms. Angel commented that the Canon 10-22 is the best in its class of all brands for aps-c. Most of the reviews I've read strongly disagree with this statement. The consensus seems to be the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is THE best in its class. The fact that the Tokina is actually less expensive than the Canon makes this an easier choice. Its unfortunate that these lenses cannot be used on your film camera. You could buy wide primes instead, but that would be a more expensive and less versatile option. On the long side, all of the 70-200mm Canon options are quality lenses.</p>

[ed_v.]

For a quality telephoto zoom that goes to 300 mm for a reasonable price have a look at the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS. I don't own it so I can't give first hand comments, but I've read many positive reviews. It's not an "L" lens but it's probably the best you can get without going there. It will also work on your Elan.

 

On the wide end I do own the Tamron 10-24 (forgive me for not remembering the complete name). I was pleasantly surprised by the quality despite the negative reviews on the web. It's major rough spot is 10 mm @ f/3.5 where it's very soft in the extreme corners, but otherwise it suits me fine.

[geoffm]

<p>I tend to favour a combo of 10-22, 24-105, and 100-400.<br>

I can't use the 10-22 on my old EOS50 (= Elan II, I think), but maybe the 24 end of the 24-105 would be wide enough for the odd times I want to use film. (To be honest, I haven't shot a roll of film since I went digital 4 years ago, and I suspect it's going to stay that way!)<br>

The 100-400 is indeed big and heavy. I have the 70-300 for those "travelling light" times, and it's not bad at all. It doesn't focus nearly as quickly as the 100-400 though, and fails to find focus more often.</p>

[darrendrevik]

<p>I also love the 10-22mm on my 20D. I'm planning to add a 5D mark 2 to my body linup, and weep that I can't use it on that body. You have a good range of focal lengths, I might suggest getting a few prime lenses like the 50mm 1.4 or an 85mm. If you had to add another zoom, I can recommend the 70-200mm 2.8 L IS. Very nice lens for tight portraits or sports.</p>