EF-S 10-22 plus what?

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Jim,<br>

I only shoot with Panny LX3 set at 24mm most of the time, for last 2 years....80% of the pictures you see in the above link have come out of LX3.<br>

I have used a 50 1.8 in the past. When i was shooting with it, it was the only lens i had.<br>

I also had a 85 1.8 for an yeear or so, again, that being the only lens.<br>

In fact, never had a zoom lens ever, except LX3, but then i use it at 24 all the time.<br>

The fact that i have never had a tele, makes me want it and see how it goes.<br>

So what Brad says is true, if i look at my pictures, they are all normal, normal wide, wide perspective.<br>

But the fact remains that it was not out of choice: if i had a tele, maybe my work also had those shots.<br>

tricky.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Very nice, Anurag. Perhaps you will get some time with a tele, and see how it goes for you. That is often where many people I meet start out, and they don't discover the wide end until the fun of filling the frame from a distance subsides over time. You did a great job of learning how to see a story in an entire scene first. I think you will have fun with any lens at this point.</p>

<p>My question to Brad, and my wish that I could use only two lenses 99% of the time was sincere. Between work and the variety of tings I enjoy shooting, I ended up liking the perspective of a pretty wide variety of lenses. Then again, much of my recent commercial work has been shooting furnished interiors, and for that, I do use the 10-22 ultra wide zoom more than anything else by far. Likely 80% of the time.</p>

<p>I look forward to seeing more of your shots in the future!</p>

[obi-wan-yj]

<p>I'm a little late to the game here, but I wanted to chime in. I just bought a 10-22 a few weeks ago. It is the 27th lens I own, with 23 of those being old, manual focus and mostly primes. My previous walkabout lens was a Sigma 17-70 (the older version), which worked well and should now be excellent with the enhancements in the newly released version. However, I haven't touched the 17-70 since I bought my 10-22. I will use it again, no doubt, in situations where I can have only one lens and I need the most flexibility (like my son's Cub Scout campout next month). Generally, I tend to use my 17-70 at either 17mm or 70mm, and rarely in between. It saves me from having to swap lenses between "fairly wide" and "kind of long."</p>

<p>I've been on a couple outings recently -- a car show and the zoo with my family -- where I took only two lenses and was very happy: the 10-22mm and a 90mm f/2.5 macro (old, manual Tamron 52B prime). For those situations, this pair was absolutely perfect, and I'm sure I'll pair them together again in the future. (The most recent shot in my gallery was 10mm at that car show.)</p>

<p>Several people have recommended a 17-50 lens as a next step. Personally, I don't see the point. There's quite a bit of overlap between those two lenses, and 50mm is barely twice as long as 22mm. I think your 10-22 would be much better complemented by a 24-105 or a 28-135 lens. 28-135 covers the normal to moderate telephoto range, and they're dirt cheap these days ($250 on Craig's List for an IS version). I have *lots* of lenses to choose from, and I find that unless I'm shooting wildlife, I very rarely reach for anything longer than 135mm. I do use my 135's a lot for people photos, though, and judging from your gallery, I think you'd get a lot of use from that range, too. I do have a few 50/1.4 lenses, and I use them frequently in low light and still lifes, but I wouldn't recommend one as your next lens if all you've got is a 10-22. Get a zoom that will allow you some more flexibility. You can worry about specializing after you've experimented and discovered where your current setup is lacking.</p>

<p>Of course, if price and size are no concern, just get the new Sigma 50-500 f/2.8 OS and be done with it. Paired with your 10-22, you'll have virtually every useful focal length covered!</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Jim, <br>

I guess you're quite used to changing lenses and stuff...using only 2 lenses, common sense says, is quite like using 3 lenses, or 4 lenses, once you get into this seriously. A bit like using a tripod. Initially, i used to run away from it, but now, it has really become a second nature, especially once the realisation dawns that there's no choice :) So i guess if i can use 2, i can as well use 3 or 4, if that's how it must be. <br>

Joshua, nathan, sam, jonathan, gil: i understand where you guys are coming from. A standard range like 17-55 will definitely get the 90% job done. <br>

Ben, thanks for chiming in. I guess i will still go for a tele range to compliment the UW...just to check it out and especially because i am visiting himalayas the coming month. What i will probably do, is buy the IS kit lens, just in case. Or a fast prime. <br>

Can i get a 24-60 F2-2.5 of my LX3 in the slr world :)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Out of curiosity, do you only use two lenses 99% of the time? I'm seriously curious, and it's not a trick question. I

wish I could settle on just two lenses for 99% of my shots.

<P>

Yes, pretty much. On my crop body cam its was almost always a a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nad once in awhile a canon 10-22. The former being superb for street

and street portraits which is <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">what I shoot</a>.

<P>

On my full-frame 5DII, it's just a Zeiss 35 f/2 - covers both street and street portraits. Used to be just a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.4<P>

 

On days I feel like shooting wide, I take my 450D

and 10-22 instead.