Canon EF 10-22mm or 17-40mm wide angle: Can anyone offer an opinion on the Canon EF-S 10-22 versus the Canon EF 17-40.
1251526
I have owned both lens and get a lot more use from the 10-22. It is a very high quality lens from an image standpoint and in fact I sold the 17-40. The 10-22 gives you a true wide angle as well as being a lot of fun. You can use it for portraits with little experimenting....exceptionally sharp and clear lens. GET IT.
204307
85mm f/1.8 EF USM is a good choice for portraiture and standard photography, especially if you're shoot'n low light conditions using natural light with the wider aperture. 60mm macro would be fun..May I suggest the Canon EFS 17-85mm f/3-5.5 USM Ultra wide...it has a wide focal range, still wide aperture and GREAT for all photography ($750)...my Canon is always wearing it until I put on a larger 90-300mm lens :)
1647522
I use 58mm because I do not want an over size filter-67mm. while using the 58mm, I do not have the vignetting problem so I think 58mm is good with the Canon Powershot SX series.
2227377
The lens I mostly use is the EF-S 17-85mmf/3-5.6 67mm Wide angle and it's beautiful!! change to just a standard 70-300mm telephoto zoom and go to space! Sweet thing about EOS is if you were shoot'n any of the lower EOS models (650D..1100D...} you will instantly be familiar with the 60D and higher!!!
1272574
To future amateurs with this question i would recommend the 17-50 over the 28-75 especially when your camera has a cropped sensor. It becomes a 28-80mm which makes it an appropriate wide angle to take landscape shots and portraits at 50mm(80mm equivalent). 28-75mm becomes more of a telephoto lens on a cropped dslr and i would only recommend getting it on a full frame (but then again if you can afford a full frame and use it professionally, you would probably go with the cannon 28-75L)
2174721
I have a 20D. The answer is, it depends on what you want to do. The EF 24-70 and the 70-200 both have the "red stripe" and are top-of-the-line, awesome lenses. They rely on big optics with the 77mm objective lens to produce their images. They are great at all times, especiallhy in low light. They are also very heavy and quite expensive. Get them if you are going for absolute, uncompromising photos. Get a tripod or monopod, too, unless you do arm curls in your spare time! If you want excellent photos with less weight and expense, I recommend you get the EF 17-85 IS as your base lens for light weight and convenience. (If you get the "base" 18-55, you will find you quit using it the day you get a newer lens. We have a Digital Rebel that came with that lens, and we never use it. Never. Did I say "Never?" Buy a body or a kit with the 17-85 unless you are going the 24-70 route. The 18-55 only adds about $50 to the camera price, which isn't much compared to the price of the camera bodies, but why waste $50?) For telephoto zoom, the 70-300 IS is an excellent lens, about the same weight and size as the 24-70 but of course much more versatile. Then you will need a wide-angle, and again you have two ways you can go. I have a 10-22 lens that was less costly than Canon's red-stripe wide angles, and I am well-pleased. You get some parallax below a focal length of 12-14, but it's kind of a neat effect if you like it. I hope this helps.
264853
If I recall correctly the Canon EF-S 18-55mm kit lens takes 58mm filters. Usually the front of the lens lists the filter diameter.
11422
My suggestions would be first the Canon 24-105mm F4.0 IS L and if the price is too much, go for the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
1913179
Of course. Like all APS-C cameras, 60D accepts all EF and EF-S canon lenses.Keep in mind that if you're not planning to upgrade to a full frame camera (like 6D or 5D, which only accepts EF lenses), or if you're not a pro, or you just want an ultrawide lens, the canon EF-S 10-22 will give you a wider angle of view in a budget.
14699
The EF-S 18-55 mm IS lens and the 55-250mm IS lens are made by Canon, not the case for the Telephoto and wide-angle lenses.
2048246
They are both excellent lenses, and I own both. The 27 usually gets the nod for walk-around shooting for compactness and light weight. I use the 23 for work. The 27 renders beautiful images on the Fuji sensor, nothing at all wrong with its image quality. I do think that the regular price is high for this lens, as it's often on rebate so I waited to buy it.
2240578
I have had the 17-85 for a couple months and i already want to upgrade.. i want to sell it. i want the 17-40 f4 really bad. i would say unless dont mind about pictures that lack somewhat sharpness i would go with the 17-40. the 17-85 is hard to use i think.. of course unless you want mine ide sell it to you :)
2133893
I bought the Canon 10-22mm because it was a little bit faster (3.5/4.5 vs 4.0/5.6) and gave me a little more range on the zoom. I tend to trust Canon glass over Sigma personally especially with the technical components. I've shot on the Sigma and the Canon and as far as picture quality goes, I give the edge to the Canon lens.
1173523
No, they are both 24mm. For a wider lens try the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L. I own the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS and use it for video and like it very much. If I need it to be 'wider' I just step back away from the subject.
1625586
Thanks for your advice. Aperture would normally win with me also, but there's also the price difference to consider. I'm considering the Canon 10-22 mm, too, which is about the same price as the Tokina 11-16; that has the additional advantage of being much lighter, too. I'm really finding it very hard to make up my mind.
1061954
17-40 should do very well. It's wide enough, though you need to decide if 40 mm is enough for you on the long end. If you don't need that wide a lens, the 24-105 is a good alternative though on crop sensor 7D, the wide end is equivalent to almost 38mm. Just consider all these factors before final decision. You could ask for more advise at our photography forum:http://photographyclubofindia.com/boards/index.php
208235
The SEL16F28 is not any wider angle than the stock 16-50 zoom lens, but there are a few differences. First off, the lowest f-stop on the stock 16-50 lens is 3.5 while this SEL16F28 goes to an f-stop of 2.8, which gives you a bit more control of your light. Another key difference is that if you want to use the ultra-wide angle or fish-eye attachments (both of which give a wider angle view) they connect to this SEL16F28 lens and not the stock zoom one. The biggest difference is that shooting with a prime, or non-zoom, lens is that it forces you to shoot differently and move yourself into position rather than relying on the zoom to get you there. All the Best, adam