# Please help me.



## Anthonyhnj (Feb 11, 2013)

Hi, I am a former canon 5dII with a 24-70 user. About 2 plus years ago I sold all my canon gear and bought into micro 4/3's I recently decided I wanted to move back to using dslr and will sell off my m4/3's gear. With recent price drops, I picked up a 60d for 699.00. 

Here's where I need your help. I am so undecided on lens selection with the crop factor. I love shooting wide to sometimes ultra wide. I picked up for the time being the 40 2.8 just to play around with because it was so cheap. Not a bad lens for 150.00, only problem is I find it a little long for my liking. 

Here's what I was thinking and here's where I really need you help. I was thinking on getting the 10-22 for UWA to wide and also getting the 17-40 for my day to day walking around. Do these two lenses overlap to much, am I better off getting the 10-22 with either the 24 usm is or the 28 1.8. I feel the primes are not that wide on the crop body. What are your thoughts and your recommendations. 

I also shoot macros and will get the 60macro and for the long end for when I need it will get either the 70-200 f4 usm is or the 70-300 usm is. 

Thanks for your help,
Anthony


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 11, 2013)

10-22 is the widest rectilinear lens you can get, AFAIK, so if you want that true UWA coverage without something like the 8-15 or a prime 8mm fisheye, then it's a great lens, and will get you 16mm FF equivalent, which is pretty darn wide. 

The widest I have is the 17-55, which I have been very happy with, and which is wide enough for me. Even if you get the 10-22, there's so little overlap in focal length, I'd say you should consider the following: 17-40 or 17-55 for general purpose first, and then 10-22 for wide angle if you find 17 on crop isn't wide enough.

EF 17-40 f/4L vs EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS L :

advantages of 17-40: 
FF compatible, should you go that way in the future
weather sealed
less expensive

advantages of 17-55:
longer on the tele end
2.8 max aperture
3-stop IS

for me, I decided the 2.8 max aperture and additional 15mm of range were worth the cost. IS wasn't super important, but is nice to have. I have no intention of going FF (my next body will be a 7d2 whenever that comes out... for now I'm sticking with my 7d.) You just have to ask yourself what you want/need, and which is more appropriate. Or neither, really- who am I to tell you what to consider.

Just my two cents.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 11, 2013)

Definitely that 10-22 for ultra wide purposes and I might throw in a 18-50 Tamron instead of a 17-40 Canon there.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 11, 2013)

17-40L is a good call ...has a broad usable focal range on a crop body. Add a 24mm or 28mm faster prime and you will be happy. 28mm f1.8 gets a bad rap but these are overstated. It is a good fast lens on a crop and best approximates the normal FOV. With both, you also ensure usability with future Full Frame, should you upgrade. 

If your budget allows, consider the 16-35II f/2.8 instead of 17-40 f/4, you will then have two fast lenses. But the f4 lens is no slouch and both are great walk arounds for crops.

Cheers.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 11, 2013)

I'm not a crop shooter, but I've heard that the only reason the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't have a red ring is because it's got an EF-S mount. If I was a crop shooter, it'd be at the top of my short list for a standard zoom.

The 17-40 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8 are both too short on the long end for my tastes as a standard zoom, and f/4 is getting rather slow for APS-C.

Since you're experienced as a photographer, you might also want to consider a holy trinity of primes. The problem with APS-C is that your choices at the wide end aren't fantastic. The Canon 20mm is weak and the good 20mm primes are expensive and / or manual focus. You've got some good choices for a normal, especially the new 28mm. The Shorty McForty is a good lens but an awkward length on APS-C, but you've got no shortage of superlative 50s to choose from for a telephoto.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 11, 2013)

10-22 matches well with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and a 70-200 set up. The overlap is nice because it reduces the number of lens swaps.

Other good UWA choices are Sigma's 8-16 and Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8.

For macros, I'd pick a EF 100mm macro over the EF-S 60mm macro. The increased working distance is nice to have.

If you are considering moving back to FF in the future, then I'd opt for a 24-70 rather than the 17-55.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom lens for APS-C. The EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is a close second. Both are optically equivalent to L-series lenses (as is the 10-22mm). In fact, when comparing them on the same APS-C body, the 17-55mm outperforms both the 17-40L and the 24-105L. 

I'm a big proponent of getting the lens(es) you need for the body you have. If you're getting a FF camera next month, that's one thing. But if you're getting a FF camera 'someday...maybe..." then in the wide to normal range, an EF-S lens is the best choice, and the three EF-S lenses maned above hold their value quite well.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> , and the three EF-S lenses maned above hold their value quite well.


Neuro, are you lionising lenses again?


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 11, 2013)

If you need fast zooms +1 for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (or the Tamron equivalent without the vibration compensation - it is a sharp lens) otherwise I would say 15-85 or the 24-105...

Also, I went for the 100mm non L as macro lens and never looked back...

Lastly, I have a 70-200 f/4 IS which is a great lens by all means but with the 70-300 L one does not loose much for the 100 mm gain on the long end... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm a big proponent of getting the lens(es) you need for the body you have.



Amen.

It's one thing to get a 50 as a short telephoto portrait lens for APS-C with a thought at the back of your mind that you might also like it as a normal lens on a full-frame body.

It's another thing entirely to get a 24-105 as a non-standard standard zoom for APS-C because one day you want to have a full-frame body. The 24-105, as wonderful as it is on a full-frame body (indeed, probably the best walkabout standard zoom you can get), is probably the absolute worst choice for a standard zoom one could make for APS-C.

Similarly, the 16-35 just isn't a good standard zoom for APS-C. It goes from moderately wide to normal, which isn't really a very useful range for most circumstances. I'm sure there are those who find it useful for certain circumstances and any pro will work with the tools one has...but, when one has a choice, that's not the choice to make.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2013)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > , and the three EF-S lenses maned above hold their value quite well.
> ...


What, you think it doesn't happen?


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Feb 11, 2013)

Anthonyhnj said:


> Hi, I am a former canon 5dII with a 24-70 user. About 2 plus years ago I sold all my canon gear and bought into micro 4/3's I recently decided I wanted to move back to using dslr and will sell off my m4/3's gear. With recent price drops, I picked up a 60d for 699.00.
> 
> Here's where I need your help. I am so undecided on lens selection with the crop factor. I love shooting wide to sometimes ultra wide. I picked up for the time being the 40 2.8 just to play around with because it was so cheap. Not a bad lens for 150.00, only problem is I find it a little long for my liking.
> 
> ...



There have been some excellent recommendations already, so I will not add any more. However what was it made you switch to a MFT camera, and then what made you return to DSLRs?


----------



## well_dunno (Feb 11, 2013)

Though none of the lenses have enough DR so you might like to reconsider! ;D 

I kid I kid!


----------



## JPAZ (Feb 11, 2013)

+1 on the 10-22.

Used one for quite a while when I shot APS-C.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 11, 2013)

back in the day of my crop sensor days, i went just that route, well kinda... I used the 17-40 as my daily use lens and I had a sigma 10-20... (at the time there wasn't the canon 10-22 and when that lens did come out, it was still more $$ than the sigma). The sigma didn't quite have the crispness i would have liked, but when I needed it for ultrawide, it delivered time and time again. As far as 17-40 vs 17-55 or tamrons 17-50... I've never used tamrons lens... i've seen great test results from it, but when it came time to purchase, the nearest store that sold tamron was 2 hours each way JUST to try it out... screw that. I did test the 17-40 and 17-55... To me, i personally wasn't impressed with the 17-55... it was as sharp as the 17-40 but it was plasticy, and after a week of shooting it, there just wasn't anything making WANT to buy it over the 17-40. The 17-40 has a depressing zoom range... not nearly long enough for my taste, but for $700 at the time of purchase, i was willing to live with that. Now, my 17-40 sits in my bag as my UWA for my 5d3 and if i would have gotten the 17-55, it would have been sold a while ago.


----------



## Anthonyhnj (Feb 11, 2013)

Ian_of_glos said:


> There have been some excellent recommendations already, so I will not add any more. However what was it made you switch to a MFT camera, and then what made you return to DSLRs?



Although the concept of micro 4/3 is there, The practicality for me never really worked. It's very liberating to carry two bodies and a bunch of lenses all in one small bag. That being said I'm 6'5 and have hands that are the size of baseball gloves, lol. Also, I shoot a lot of indoor shots using flash,( I know, I know, I said the F word.) of my kids and family. For me, the flash exposure compensation on micro 4/3 is still not there yet, I constantly was adjusting flash setting and at best the results were very inconsistent. After shooting the kids on Christmas morning I finally have enough And decided I wanted to move back to DSLR. IMO canon has the best flash exposure in the game. 

Anthony


----------



## noisejammer (Feb 11, 2013)

The pixels of an APS-C camera are small so that photons are always at a premium. Because of this, I'm inclined to advise against the 10-22 and 8-16 offerings because they are very slow optically. 

Similarly, I was fairly unimpressed with the way a 17-40 worked on my 7D, but it works very well indeed on a full frame camera. So temper your desire for an L lens with your long term aspirations.

When looking at lenses suited for the 60D, I'd say the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and the Canon 17-55/2.8 are about as good as you will get.


----------



## Anthonyhnj (Feb 11, 2013)

Wow, some great responses, thanks to all. I recently rented the 15-85 and I don't know if I have a bad copy or not, but I'm not very impressed. I find there's a lot of distortion at the wide end. I may rent the 17-55 and see what's that about before I make my decision. I just purchased the 10-22. For you prime people, How do you find the canon 24 usm is and the 28 1.8 vs 28 usm is? Or even the 35 usm is. I know they're not very wide but how do you feel as a day to day lens on the crop body.

Anthony


----------



## Stig (Feb 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom lens for APS-C.



+1 

it was my upgrade from the kit zoom, I also considered 24-105, but I thought it wouldn't be wide enough on crop for standard walkaround and 15-85, but then went for the fast constant aperture and didn't regret it... until I went FF sooner than I thought I could and had to buy a new lens as well (24-105)

IMO, for a two lens setup, not a bad idea would be to go for 15-85 for general, travel... and add the cheap 50mm 1.8 for a fast prime... for me it was my best new lens investment (introduced me to the concept of DOF and new low light options for a nice price : ) ), however you already have the 40 and find it too long... so I hear the 10-22 is great and therefore, how about plan B: 10-22 + 24-105 no overlap, only a tiny gap and a great general zoom ready should you move to FF 

btw., when I was thinking about a wide zoom for my aps-c, I was thinking about the sigma 8-16... even wider than the canon 10-22 and a nice combo could be 8-16 + 17-55, no overlap, no gap http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## bholliman (Feb 11, 2013)

I'll agree with those recommending the EF-S 10-22, 15-85 and 17-55. All three are excellent lenses on a crop body and of L quality. I've owned the later two and rented the 10-22 for two vacations, so have extensive experience with all three.



Anthonyhnj said:


> I recently rented the 15-85 and I don't know if I have a bad copy or not, but I'm not very impressed. I find there's a lot of distortion at the wide end.



The 15-85 has a little distortion at the wide end, similar to the 24-105L on a FF camera, but this is a minor negative in my opinion, easy to correct in PP. Its very sharp with good color rendition, has a good zoom range and a convenient size for a walk-around lens. The decision between the 15-85 and 17-55 will depend on if you need a 2.8 aperture or the additional range of the 15-85 more.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> 17-40L is a good call ...has a broad usable focal range on a crop body.



Yes and no: it's ok on crop, light & good flare control - though the 17-40L is better on ff plus it's not sharp esp. at open aperture in comparison to the ef-s lenses. I'd only get the 17-40L for crop if upgrading/dual-using to/with ff is planned, or if weather sealing is important - in the latter category the 17-40L shines as an internal zoom.



Ray2021 said:


> If your budget allows, consider the 16-35II f/2.8 instead of 17-40 f/4, you will then have two fast lenses. But the f4 lens is no slouch and both are great walk arounds for crops.



Here I have to disagree - since there is the Tokina 11-16 for crop imho the 16-35L is complete overkill - constructing an uwa zoom for ff is much harder esp. if the corners have to be sharp, that's why the 16-35L is so expensive. On crop the mirror is smaller, the ef-s lens is nearer to the sensor and a good performing f2.8 uwa is cheaper to produce. Next to that, the 16-35L is heavy, and you're not even using part of the glass.

Disclaimer: I'd gladly switch my 17-40L for a 16-35L for free, but only because I'll get a 6d sooner or later.


----------



## Anthonyhnj (Feb 11, 2013)

So does having the 10-22 overlap with the 15-85 to much?


----------



## papa-razzi (Feb 11, 2013)

Anthonyhnj said:


> Wow, some great responses, thanks to all. I recently rented the 15-85 and I don't know if I have a bad copy or not, but I'm not very impressed. I find there's a lot of distortion at the wide end. I may rent the 17-55 and see what's that about before I make my decision. I just purchased the 10-22. For you prime people, How do you find the canon 24 usm is and the 28 1.8 vs 28 usm is? Or even the 35 usm is. I know they're not very wide but how do you feel as a day to day lens on the crop body.
> 
> Anthony



Anthony, I have a 7D. I waited forever for the long rumored 24-70 f/2.8L to be updated with IS. After waiting a year I pulled the trigger on the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. After a few days with the lens I wished I would have purchased it a year earler. This lens was made for crop cameras and is the 24-70 FF equivalent (only it has IS). I wouldn't hesitate to get this lens.

I have a friend that purchased a EF-S 15-85, and we were shooting at an indoor church social (flash not usable) and he couldn't get any pictures because of the higher f-stop. Later that week he sold his 15-85 and purchased the 17-55. For me, the wider aperture trumps the longer focal range every day.

Even if I had a FF camera, I would still keep the 17-55 as long I had my crop camera. If I sold the crop, I would sell the lens with it. I don't buy into the concept of limiting my lens selection to EF only in the event that some day I may end up with a FF camera.

With the 17-55 f/2.8, I don't see a reason to get any primes that are not faster than f/2.8. So the new 24 & 28 f/2.8 IS primes dont add anything beyond what you already have with a 17-55.


----------



## alan_k (Feb 11, 2013)

I can only go by my experience, but I love the Sig 8-16. It's hard enough to go wide on APS-C, and I found myself using it primarily at the 8mm end. My use has been primarily outdoors and sometimes on a tripod. It doesn't play well with filters so that would be my main reason I would recommend against it (that and it's fish-eye-y which you may or may not want to deal with).

I moved from the Tamron 17-50 to the Canon 17-40L. The Tamron (nonVC) is a really nice lens but is kind of noisy and lacks full time MF. I debated between the 17-55 EF-s and the 17-40L, and decided the weather sealing was important enough for me- I spend a couple months a year in a very dusty environment and I saw some complaints about dust getting in the 17-55. I bought a Sigma 30mm/1.4 if I need to work in low light.


----------

