10-22mm vs 24-70mm for 350D

[m00g]

Hello! Thanks for reading!

Apologies in advance if you've read this on WP or DPS forums.....

I was given a very nice Christmas present - a canon 10-22mm lens.

I shoot with a 350D, but am looking to upgrade to full frame in 2-3 years.

Should I use the 10-22, or consider returning it and changing to either a 24-70 or 70-200?

I currently use the 18-55 kit, 50mm f/1.8 and a 100mm f/2.8 macro. I shoot some portraiture, (not much) landscape and a reasonable number of macros (knida all over the place really!). An analysis of my focal length use shows that I favour the 50 and 100mm (not surprising, seeing as I loathe the kit). I would love to find a new walk around lens.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

Cheers!

[aim54x]

Welcome to the forum m00g!

If you think you will find more use with the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm then I would be inclined to say go for it. HOWEVER being a gift is it ok with the gift giver for you to exchange the 10-22? Some people are touchy about this. The 10-22 is a fun lens and you never know you may discover use for it.

Cheers

[Hemulen]

mtcw... how about trading it in for a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS?

(For good measure, you could also get rid of the kit at the same time... Odds are you may well find a buyer for it on ebay).

[muzz]

mtcw... how about trading it in for a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS?

It's my understanding that you can't use EF-S lenses on full frame bodies such as the 5D as the rear element interferes with the shutter so you may want to make sure you don't end up with a lens that you have to upgrade again later.

[aim54x]

mtcw... how about trading it in for a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS?

(For good measure, you could also get rid of the kit at the same time... Odds are you may well find a buyer for it on ebay).

There seems little point in trading for a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS if you are going full frame in the foreseeable future. Lets not mention the price tag of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS being so close to that of the 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1489 vs $1749 at d-d-photographics). If you want a direct replacement for the 18-55 then consider the EF 17-40mm f/4L which is an absolute gem of a lens.

[aim54x]

mtcw... how about trading it in for a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS?

It's my understanding that you can't use EF-S lenses on full frame bodies such as the 5D as the rear element interferes with the shutter so you may want to make sure you don't end up with a lens that you have to upgrade again later.

You are correct there. The EF-S is a different mount to the EF, EF-S lenses are physically locked out of full frame bodies. Note that crop sensor canon's have a red dot (EF mount) and a white square (EF-S mount) indicators on the lens mount.

I'm a Nikon user but have always wondered if 3rd party (Tamron/Tokina/Sigma) Digital specific lenses for Canon will actually mount on a full frame body (most that I have seen seem to use the red dot, ie EF mount)

[Hemulen]

The OP said that they were "looking to upgrade to full frame in 2-3 years."

Does that count as "the foreseeable future"?

(Presumably it depends on how often one is minded to upgrade. In making the suggestion that I (perhaps foolishly) did, I considered that they might get at least 2-3 years of use out of the lens before their desire to move to full-frame rendered it fodder for ebay. That and the fact that the lens is itself fairly well regarded by some. fwiw, mtcw, ymmv and so on.)

[gstark]

The OP said that they were "looking to upgrade to full frame in 2-3 years."

Does that count as "the foreseeable future"?

That is actually the point that I would like clarified.

He's also currently using a 350D, which by any definition is at best an older body. Still lets one take good images, and depending upon usage, should continue to do so within and beyond that timeframe, but what of user satisfaction/frustration with the older body?

That is a question that can only be answered by the OP.

That said, the 10-22 is very much a versatile and fun lens, but can never be compared with the 24-70, because their defined usage parameters are just so different.

The salient points to be considered are, IMHO,

How realistic is the OP's projected upgrade timetable? If three or thereabouts years is realistic, then the question of how many shots might be taken with either lens under consideration during that timeframe needs to be considered, which brings us to the next question ...

What, exactly, does the OP actually shoot? The statement is made that he's looking to get a new, and satisfactory, walkaround lens. With the eventual goal being to move to full frame, I would suggest that any future purchases need to be made with that goal in mind, but on a crop body, is the 24mm wide enough for use as a walkaround? And then there's its weight o be considered, within the context of it being a walkaround.

These are not points which we can answer, but which the OP needs to consider, and the answers will be the guide for him as to which lens he needs to keep and/or acquire.


And a minor point of detail that needs to be addressed ..

It's my understanding that you can't use EF-S lenses on full frame bodies such as the 5D as the rear element interferes with the shutter so you may want to make sure you don't end up with a lens that you have to upgrade again later.

Sort of, but not quite. The rear elements of the lens will interfere with the mirror, rather than with the shutter. When you look into the mirror box, you will quickly see that this is evident.

But yes, EF-S lenses will not work on a FF body, and if one is looking to move to FF at some point in the future, then this ought to be a point of consideration.

[m00g]

Thanks for all your replies!!!

I still have much to consider.

One of the lenses I found in my father's collection was a 28-80mm EF f/3.5-5.6 II which I've been using for the last few weeks. I find that this focal length suits my shooting style. I realise that this is a decision that only I can make. I appreciate all your input.

Its hard for me to say whether FF in 3 years is realistic. I believe it is so. However, even if I "only" upgrade to a 40D, I think that use of a 24-70 would still be fantastic. That said, the money I've saved from going to a 40D (instead of a 5D) could likely cover the extra cost of a 10-22 if Indeed that is what I want then.

Has anyone here had any significant sharpness issues with a 24-70mm? In the same vein, I've read that the 10-22 is among canon's sharpest EF-S lens, rivaling the 16-35L - any thoughts?

Thanks once again for your input!

[aim54x]

I can tell you the EF 17-40F4L is sharper than the 16-35F2.8L on the long end (from what I have read) but I am not qualified to tell you how the 24-70F2.8L compares, however I do know that my friend (forum name) karenkwan uses the 24-70F2.8L as her main lens and loves it. I am sure this is a popular lens amongst the canon users on this forum (the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 is amongst the Nikon crowd) so hopefully someone will be able to answer your question.

[Yi-P]

Dont forget that the 24-70, 17-40 and even 16-35 are larger and heavier than the 10-22mm.

As for a 'walkaround' lens, it would preferably be reasonably small, light and does have acceptable sharpness.

The 24-70 is too big and heavy to be 'walkaround' as I'd consider.

Wandering in tight spaces and city scapes within, the 10-22 is better as the walkaround lens IMHO.

[garyr]

I have the 24-105 on a crop body. I really like the fact that the L is a bit more robust, and I am not overly concerned with a few snowflakes, raindrops or a bit of dust - so it really can sit on my camera most of the time. But I do find that the 24 is not wide enough as a walk around for in the city. And the weight and size can be a real pain.

The 10-22 has such a good reputation, I would expect the OP to get a fair price back if he does decide to move to FF at a later stage.

Cheers

[Big V]

The 10-22mm is not a good lens it is a great lens! It is one of the best non L lenses I owned. It will give you much joy but will not fit on FF body. It is the only lens I miss after upgrading and I had the 17-85mm, plus usual kit lenses. I now have the 17-40mm and it is a ripper as well. As long as there are crop bodies there will be a high demand for this lens, so selling it will never be a problem. Have you thought about the 24-105 f4? A very good lens and one which I would consider as a very practical walk around lens unless you are specifically looking for compact size and light weight and if this is an issue, then you will be reduced to an EFS lens for choices...

[dwpolette]

I've just sold my 400d and am looking to get a 5d.
I think at this stage I will go for a 24-70 f/2.8 as a walk about and then later down the track look at a 17-40 F/4L for the really wide stuff.

I was looking at a 50d inititally and was considering the 17-55 f/2.8 instead of the 24-70L.
Even though it is a EF-S lens and will only work with cropped sensors, it is known to be of similar quality to an L lens, and will be easy to sell in a few years when you do go to FF.

10-22 isn't a great walk about lens, it's fantastic for landscapes and tight spaces, but you wouldn't survive with that alone.