02-26-2007, 09:03 AM
|
#17
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Groningen - Netherlands
Posts: 1,324
|
Cramped shows + landscapes = 10-22
__________________
EOS 5D|EOS 600|15-30|24 1.4 L|135 2 L|2x 580EX|2x CP-E3|ST-E2|2x Pocket Wizzard Plus II|IXUS 850IS|Crumpler|Manfrotto|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 09:45 AM
|
#18
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 6,395
|
That is in terms of its focal range rather than quality of the lens or what? Which is regarded as providing the better quality photo?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 11:43 AM
|
#19
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Groningen - Netherlands
Posts: 1,324
|
I used to have both a 17-40 and a 10-22 for my 30D, and the 10-22 was actually sharper! Color/contrast was very similar.
__________________
EOS 5D|EOS 600|15-30|24 1.4 L|135 2 L|2x 580EX|2x CP-E3|ST-E2|2x Pocket Wizzard Plus II|IXUS 850IS|Crumpler|Manfrotto|
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 02:41 PM
|
#20
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 3,850
|
The 10-22 will be great for landscapes but may be too distorting for car shoots. Unless you want to supplement your existing wide angle.
__________________
"Tazio Nuvolari - The greatest driver of the past, the present and the future" - Ferdinand Porsche
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 03:50 PM
|
#21
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
L and 40mm would be usefull in more situations IMO.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-26-2007, 06:31 PM
|
#22
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 6,395
|
Yeah I'm tending to agree with TT, had a think about this in bed  last night - I'd prefer not to use the 18-55 at all and this is a better replacement for the 10-22 which will limit me.
I'm sure the 17-40 will also do for some nice landscape stuff. 
I think I'll place my order today.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 12:08 AM
|
#23
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 6,395
|
I've just bought the 17-40 and a 77mm polarizer, will get them tomorrow.
Decided its better all-round, I do still want a wide-angle to use on cars and the 10-22 would just be too limiting I think. Would love both but not gonna spend that much $$ right now.
I'm excited, hope it lives up to my expectations. 
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 12:43 AM
|
#24
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 3,850
|
A few more stock market killings and you might find yourself with a sports car to fill the garage with
__________________
"Tazio Nuvolari - The greatest driver of the past, the present and the future" - Ferdinand Porsche
|
|
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 04:09 AM
|
#25
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 6,395
|
The WRX is not a sports car?  (jokes)
Hehe, well I have enough to put a nice deposit on something better and get a loan/lease for the rest - but I am not a fan of borrowing money to buy a car so I will wait.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 04:23 AM
|
#26
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 4,692
|
good choice dingo :good:
with 77mm diameter, the lense is quite heavy (means good quality) 
|
|
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 04:35 AM
|
#27
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 6,395
|
I think "L" means quality!
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
02-27-2007, 04:43 AM
|
#28
|
|
Regular User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 4,692
|
I know, but I didn't enter the L-world
my new lenses have the same diameter and they are heavy, hence I immediately bought a monopod 
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
:bah:
Linear Mode
