# Need advice with UWA and extender lenses........



## Rjsehm5 (Apr 24, 2012)

Every time I read about lenses it goes both ways which in turn leaves me more confused with a dose of frustration.

In the past few weeks I have upgraded my 40D camera, 70-300 and 28-135 to this:
7D
70-200L 2.8 ll
24-105L F/4

Two things here...ouch on the reach with my 70-200. 
Brings me to question #1....a Canon extender 1.4x lll.....your thoughts?

Next:
I need an ultra wide lens. 
Question #2....I would like a recommendation to an L series lens. Considering 16-35 or 17-40...your thoughts?

There is the slight chance that I will go to FF down the road so keep this in mind. For now, happy with the crop factor because I shoot a lot of Baseball and Softball pics.

Please advise what you think would be a good fit for my current set up. Thanks so much in advance!

FYI-my focus in photography is...my kids, pets, family gatherings, lots of baseball, softball, football and football cheer (outdoors) and cheer competitions (indoor) (football being the least focus for now)


----------



## Terry Rogers (Apr 24, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*



Rjsehm5 said:


> Every time I read about lenses it goes both ways which in turn leaves me more confused with a dose of frustration.
> 
> In the past few weeks I have upgraded my 40D camera, 70-300 and 28-135 to this:
> 7D
> ...



Your only Canon option for ultrawide with a 7d is the 10-22 ef-s lens. Don't dismay though, from what I understand the optics are practically L class.

I'm sure the 1.4III will work wonderfully with the 70 - 200, but it may slow AF somewhat. An alternative might be spending a few more dollars and get the 400mm 5.6L or 100 - 400L. This would allow you the extra reach when you do go full frame.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 24, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

One uwa option is the 8-15 fisheye


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

There's also the 17-40, 16-35, and 14mm. Won't really be UWA on a 7d, but if you do end up going to FF later on it'll get you there. They will still all be wider than the 24-105.

Not sure I'd really recommend really going UWA, unless you're really just talking about being at the far edge of wide. Just rented the 14mm, and it's hard to use at anything other than right up close and personal, or back getting a view of everything (e.g. landscape or similar). So the 17-40 & 16-35 might be good for your 7d, it'll get you pretty darn wide even so, and if you go up to FF you will get down into UWA to wide.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

The issue with the 24-105 is that it is not wide enough. I used my 17-55mm EF-s when I needed wider, but now have a 15-85mm EF-s which covers most walk-around situations. If I wanted wider, I'd use my FF body, but with the 7D, the 10-22 is a excellent choice.

I'd not worry about FF, your 24-105mmL will be wide.


----------



## Rjsehm5 (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*



Drizzt321 said:


> There's also the 17-40, 16-35, and 14mm. Won't really be UWA on a 7d, but if you do end up going to FF later on it'll get you there. They will still all be wider than the 24-105.
> 
> Not sure I'd really recommend really going UWA, unless you're really just talking about being at the far edge of wide. Just rented the 14mm, and it's hard to use at anything other than right up close and personal, or back getting a view of everything (e.g. landscape or similar). So the 17-40 & 16-35 might be good for your 7d, it'll get you pretty darn wide even so, and if you go up to FF you will get down into UWA to wide.



Perhaps UWA is not exactly what I want.........Really, what I would like is a wider angle lens for trips like SF or New York where I would like to capture big buildings......where in the past I always fell short with the 28-135 that I used to have.

Also, times when the family comes over and we just want a group shot...I would like to be able to capture that type of shot. 

Lastly, I am in Real Estate and it would be a plus to take pics of the interior without having to have issues with space limitations....but this would be just a bonus, I can always use a point and shoot for RE.


----------



## scottkinfw (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

So here is my 2 cents.

I went 50D to 5DII, and looking to 5DIII (soon, I hope).

You will be amazed at how much wider (and smaller) your pics will be on ff.

I have the 70-200 2.8L is II (great after AFMA), and the 400 5.6L (also great after AFMA), and 17-40 f4l (nice, at about f6.0 or so, but not great).

I would go with the 400 f4L 5.6. No is, but not a huge, heavy lens, so relatively easy to take along for the long shots.

sek



Rjsehm5 said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > There's also the 17-40, 16-35, and 14mm. Won't really be UWA on a 7d, but if you do end up going to FF later on it'll get you there. They will still all be wider than the 24-105.
> ...


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

Canon's ef-s 10-22 is a good choice for your wider focal length needs. I had it for my crop camera, and it worked well. The range fits well with your 24-105.

The 70-200 II + 1.4x III works well IQ-wise but AF speed takes a noticeable hit. The effect is most noticeable if the subject is moving directly towards/away form the lens (tracking). You might have to experiment with your 7D settings (AF point expansion, etc.) to compensate (I use a 5DII). If you really need the reach, it might be worth looking into the 100-400. I'm waiting for version II, so I'm using the 1.4x III as a stop gap measure.


----------



## Danielle (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

+1 for the ef-s 10-22mm

It may not be all that fast, but trust us, its a worthy lens. I adore mine even if its not 'fast'. Its pretty stellar in the optic department too.


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*



Random Orbits said:


> Canon's ef-s 10-22 is a good choice for your wider focal length needs. I had it for my crop camera, and it worked well. The range fits well with your 24-105.
> 
> The 70-200 II + 1.4x III works well IQ-wise but AF speed takes a noticeable hit. The effect is most noticeable if the subject is moving directly towards/away form the lens (tracking). You might have to experiment with your 7D settings (AF point expansion, etc.) to compensate (I use a 5DII). If you really need the reach, it might be worth looking into the 100-400. I'm waiting for version II, so I'm using the 1.4x III as a stop gap measure.


does the 10-22 cover full frame for a 5D???
looks like that could be a nice BMC lens too!
thanks!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*



jlev23 said:


> does the 10-22 cover full frame for a 5D???
> looks like that could be a nice BMC lens too!
> thanks!



The 10-22 is an ef-s lens so doesn't fit the 5D - sorry.

The 16-35 on ff gives the images as the 10-22 on the 7D


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

Read Rogers write up on the different crop wide angle lenses - http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/wide-angle/canon-ef-s-10-22mm-f3.5-4.5

You'll want a digital crop lens, and there are no 'L' lenses made to that spec. A FF L is going to have a crop factor, so a 8-15mm F4L is a fish on a FF, but only a touch fishy on a crop.

It'll never be easy, since lenses are a series of trade offs between focal length, aperture, image quality and price point. And those sliders keep moving with every shoot.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

... to the original poster: Please feel free to choose a more precise thread title next time :-o ... or to change it.



Drizzt321 said:


> There's also the 17-40, 16-35, and 14mm. Won't really be UWA on a 7d, but if you do end up going to FF later on it'll get you there.



* Remember: For your average "grand nature scene or large building in front of you", you can also do panoramas with multiple shots stitched together in a couple of rows. Even handheld, the results are equal or sometimes even better (more resolution) than a single shot. Of course, nothing can move in your picture while doing that.

* Concerning uwa: this is the same problem I have - getting a ef-s uwa for crop drops ff compatibility. But since the ff ef lenses are that much more expensive, I think it's better to start off with the ef-s and then either keep your 7d as a second body or sell 7d+ef-s. One of the few advantages of crop bodies is that it's easier to manufacture good ultrawides because the lens is nearer to the sensor than on full frame.

* While this is Canon Rumors: Look at the Tokina 11-16 which has f2.8 (and thus more bokeh for a uwa) and sturdier build than the Canon 10-22. However, the Tokina has a very limited zoom range so it's pracically a fixed prime. The other option is the Sigma 8-16, it has the widest fov, but the big problem is that it doesn't take any protective filters. Btw: The Canon is only nearly "L" quality because the uwa "L" lenses are not that stellar, esp. the 17-40L...
... to the original poster: Please feel free to choose a more precise thread subject next time :-o ... or to change it.



Terry Rogers said:


> An alternative might be spending a few more dollars and get the 400mm 5.6L or 100 - 400L.



* I bought the 70-300L just because of the extra reach you're now missing on your 70-200 - while everybody thinks the latter is essential for event photogs, for outdoor shots I'm nearly constantly at 300mm. My advice: Get a fast real tele prime if you can afford it. But since you've already got the expensive 70-200 try the tele converters, but be on your toes because the af speed drops considerably with a 2x tc and might tracking of wildlife or sports much more difficult if you are into that.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

Get the 10-22mm. It's a great deal and has almost not distortion. Very surprising how wide, ultra wide really is and can be fun to use!


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*

I've used a 5D and 40D in tandem for years. I just bought a 5D3 and am eagerly awaiting a 7D2 introduction. Here are my suggestions:

Option 1: 16-35, assuming that you don't need something even wider, like a 10-22

Option 2: 5D2 or 5D3 body, turning your 24-105 back into a 24-105

Option 3: 100-400

Option 4: Combine options 1 through 3, which will give you a slew of possibilities, such as 16-35 on the 5D and 24-105 on the 7D or 70-200 on the 5D and 100-400 on the 7D or 24-105 on the 5D and 70-200 on the 7D


----------



## Rjsehm5 (Apr 25, 2012)

*Re: Why is this soooooooo difficult.......*



Marsu42 said:


> ... to the original poster: Please feel free to choose a more precise thread title next time :-o ... or to change it.
> 
> Changed! Sorry for the broad title....I am new to this.


----------

