Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 10, 2005, 9:27 PM   #1
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

I have so far tested the Tokina 12-24, and the Sigma 10-20 on my 20D.
I'm still not satisfied, and thinking about testing the Canon 10-22, but perhaps there are better options. I like the wide angle provided by the 10mm, but I do not like the idea of owing an EF-S lens when I am thinking about upgrading to the 5D eventually. So I am wondering what might be the best way to go.

I can currently get the Canon 17-40L for less than the 10-22, and it would be ideal on the 5D, but that 7mm is going to hurt on the 20D. I currently own the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and Canon 50mm f1.4, so with the 17-40, the Tamron becomes even more redundant, but I need the f2.8 quite often. I love the 16-35 f2.8, but its a bit out of my range at the moment, not quite as much if I sold the Tamron. A 35 or 50-105mm f2.8 zoom would be really nice, I have a 70-200 f2.8 that I like to keep a 1.4x TC on for the high end.

Thoughts?

limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 10, 2005, 9:39 PM   #2
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Well, here's one of my own :idea:

I have the 50mm f1.4, so 35-50mm or 40-50mm is the main gap. 50-70mm I'm not quite as worried about, or even 40-50mm for that matter. I might badly miss the f2.8...
I have 70-300, so its really how wide and how much light do I want to get. I think if I could afford the 16-35mm I'd go for it.
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2005, 10:31 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

What about the sigma 12-24? I heard that's a pretty decent lens that can also be used on full frame.

that way you can still stick with your tamron since there are no overlaps.
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2005, 11:07 PM   #4
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

I've thought about it... Although I'm not too keen on the gel filters, especially since I have these nice 77mm ones sitting right here.
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2005, 12:32 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

I have the Tokina 12-24 and I am very satisfied with it. I bought to get the extra wide angle. I bought it knowing that Iwould eventually opt for a fullframe canon. Since I also own aEF 17-40L the Tokina will stay with the 20D because it will be relegated to a backup camera and I will continue toneed the wide angle. With a full frame the 17-40L is the about the same as the 12-24 on a APS-C camera. Those 2 lenses shoot 90% of my pics. Ioccasionally switch to my Tamron 28-75 2.8 forlow light shooting but I prefer the 17-40L.It focuses faster and its a joy to use. I'm not sure what your dissatisfaction is with the Tokina but it has proven to be a worthy lower priced equivalent to the Canon, Sigma, or Tamron. The Tokina can be mounted on a full frame but you'll get vignetting until about 17mm. I would think the same would apply with the new Sigma widewhich was designed for a APS-C sensor.

I also have the EF 50mm 1.8 (series 1) but don't use it much.

I recently purchased the Canon EF 85mm 1.8 and it is a fantastic lens, razor sharp and extremely nice "background blur" as Canon says. It is a great indoor lens if you have room and it will be even better with a full frame.

Face it, you'll have to make some purchases based on the sensor size. But that should be done only when it will accomplish what you want to do. For me the Tokina made sense. Its a great lensbut it will stay with the 20D, and that's okay.
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2005, 4:00 AM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

keep in mind that if you go full frame, that 17-40 is not going to perform nearly as well as it does on a 1.6x crop factor camera.. if you are not satisfied with the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20, you will for sure not be satisfied with the 17-40 on a FF... the APS only super wides are sharper (esp the corners) and exhibit less distortion than a 17-40 on a FF camera..

and i doubt you are going to see any significant improvements with the 10-22 over the tokina and sigma, optically they are all verysimilar..

just keep in mind that these are super-wides (even the 17-40 on a FF).. so you are not going to get the sharpness of a good standard zoom or prime.. you are going to have to live with a little softness in the corners and a little distortion.. thats just the nature of the beast..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2005, 5:13 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

limbiksys wrote:
Quote:
I've thought about it... Although I'm not too keen on the gel filters, especially since I have these nice 77mm ones sitting right here.
The 12-24mm full-frame EX does come with a front filter adapter for APS-C camera which works up to about ~14/15mm without vignetting for threaded filters - It's 82mm which is standard among Sigma lenses (ie my 17-35 EX f/2.8-4 use the same as are others), It easily slides On/Off, and doubles as a front/hood cap. This design is reminiscent of the full-frame Sigma 15-30 EX which also came with the same front/hood adapter fitted for 82mm opening, and is also a sleeper (this 15-30 is a workhorse and well-known among Nikon film fans):






... and with the front threaded polarizer:





-> BTW this 12-24mm EX is also an HSM lens: i.e. silent and fast with full-time AF overide and works pretty good as a macro in an emergency... :blah:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=7


NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2005, 11:42 AM   #8
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

My good filters are all 77mm. If it were the other way around I'd just use a ring.
My other problem with the Sigma 12-24 is that it is f4.5-5.6, making it difficult to use it indoor handheld without bumping up the ISO. The Tokina was a nice lens, but I wanted to try out the extra 2mm on the wide side, but found that it was not worth sacrificing the f-stop, that is why I was going to try the Canon 10-22 as it is f3.5-4.5.
I don't absolutely need super-wide; I just think it is fun. I would prefer to have a quality lens that I don't have to worry about selling when I eventually go to a full frame digital.
I decided to sell the Tamron and now I am debating between the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm. I really need the f2.8 at that focal length, but not necessarily from that lens. I could work with a prime or 2 in addition to the 17-40mm, but I may find that I can get by with the f4 and stick to the 50mm f1.4 for that. At half the price it is a very hard decision.
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2005, 10:48 PM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

limbiksys wrote:
Quote:
I decided to sell the Tamron and now I am debating between the 16-35mm and the 17-40mm... At half the price it is a very hard decision.
You may want to check the MTF of theses two lenses - This decision would be easier (especially with the revised MTF's from the Canon Japanese site)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2005, 9:41 AM   #10
Member
 
limbiksys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 78
Default

Well, I stumbled through the jp site via pictures.
Am I looking at it correctly, is the 17-40 WAY better?
limbiksys is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:01 PM.