kerry_grim Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Lots of suggesting an conflicting information to confuse you. So forgive me for adding another suggestion... Personally, I would get the 16-35 f4 unless that is too much money. Another alternative would be to get an SL-1 body dedicated to your 10-22. But that is more gear to carry, although you would have a backup camera. That SL-1 would also serves when you want to carry a camera with a minimum amount of bulk. A 40 pancake lens partners nicely with the SL-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_williams Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 <p>Fuji xbody, 10-25 & 18-55</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divo Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 <p>The same website also has this general look at the different options available for Canon... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Wide-Angle-Lens.aspx</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stefan_deisz Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 <p>Another solution could be to use a neoprene camera strap: with such a strap, it really feels like your only carrying half the weight.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 <p>Stefan, that is an excellent idea! these OpTech straps are fantastic, I should get a couple.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_stephan2 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 My most used lens is the 24-105L, when I want something lighter and wider than 24mm's I'll use my 20-35 f3.5-4.5 USM. It's very good at f8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Keefer Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 <p>I found the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 to be great for walking around. Wide enough to get a nice landscape, but with just enough zoom to get a portrait. If I were to only pick one of my lenses to put in the bag for a vacation that would be it. I just think it would give some good options and I know I can count on very good image quality, fast lens and just works so well with my 6D. Just my opinion. Landscape from Acadia and selfie on Cadillac Mountain with 24-70mm.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038139-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038140-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p> Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 Ended up getting the 16-35/4L. It wasn't much bigger in person than the 10-22 and not much heavier either. Also got an Optech strap just in case. I hear the point about "long enough for portraits" but in my own experience I always ended up using the 10mm end of the 10-22. I almost never thought "gee I wish for more long end" but there were times when even more wide end would be useful. 35mm isn't particularly long, so I guess if I really want a long end I'd lug the 70-200. But I probably won't, based on past trips, a lens that long simply isn't that useful. Now I wish I hadn't sold my 85/1.8... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry_grim Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Congratulations...an excellent lens. An 85 would complement the 16-35 nicely without adding a lot more weight or space lost. I often take just a 24 2.8 IS and 100 2.8 IS for walk-around nature shooting. If in an area with with a lot of nice scenery, I will add the 17-40. If in an area where there is a decent chance of wildlife, I will take the 70-200. That is with full frame. On the other hand there are certain situations, where, say, a 24-70 or 24-105 would be an excellent one-lens solution, especially with my 6D. Unfortunately I do not have either of these lenses. For me, it works best to vary my equipment depending on the location or type of shooting I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orly_andico Posted June 14, 2015 Author Share Posted June 14, 2015 <p>I started another thread to cover the long end - http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00dLGU</p> <p>I have never had the chance to use a 100mm prime on an FF body (back when I had the 100mm macro, I had a crop body) and 160mm equivalent is way too tunnel-vision-ish for my taste as a general-purpose lens. Maybe on FF it's less limiting, but I suspect 85mm is easier.</p> <p>I've had lots of experiences where a lens was "too long" and getting the subject into the shot a royal PITA.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 <p>Orlando said:</p> <blockquote> <p>I have never had the chance to use a 100mm prime on an FF body (back when I had the 100mm macro, I had a crop body) and 160mm equivalent is way too tunnel-vision-ish for my taste as a general-purpose lens. Maybe on FF it's less limiting, but I suspect 85mm is easier.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Orlando, some have trouble seeing ultra-wide and some have the opposite problem. You need to expand your vision by working with different focal lengths. When taking landscapes, I routinely range from 15mm out to 700mm, depending on the subject. Here's a 97mm shot taken with my 70-200mm:<br> <br> <br> <a title="Twilight Before Sunrise by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7476/16061623689_ed0f3a89b6_c.jpg" alt="Twilight Before Sunrise" width="800" height="534" /></a></p> <p>Here's 500mm:</p> <p><a title="Virga rain/snow at sunset by David Stephens, on Flickr" href=" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8060/8276573232_ea759e19a4_c.jpg" alt="Virga rain/snow at sunset" width="800" height="534" /></a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Lookin' good, David! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natures-pencil Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 <p>I looked at the awful corner sharpness of the EOS 17-40 and the 16-35 f/2.8 lenses, looked at the prices of the 11-24 f/4 L and the 14 f/2.8 L and promptly bought the 16-35 f/4 L IS (second-hand, but looked like it had never been used). </p> <p>It is fantastic. Sharp at all apertures everywhere in the frame, almost no chromatic aberration (and only a tiny bit at the edges in the most extreme contrast situations ... usually there is none), very little and easily correctable distortion and a nice colour rendering that matches my other Canon lenses. It is weather sealed too, so need not be molly-coddled.</p> <p>The Image stabilisation is bonus. As wide-angle lenses are already the most easily hand-holdable of lenses giving one IS as well means that I hardly ever need to use a tripod. Finally it is quite modest in size and weight ... about the same as the 24-70 f/4 L IS.</p> <p>If I was forced to choose just one lens for the rest of my life this could well be the one.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now