«

hi
I have a Canon 20D camera and I'm trying to decide between 3 Canon lenses
for wide angle shooting.
#1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
#2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
#3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99
I am now using the kit lens (EF-S 18-55 F 3.5-5.6) and am satisfied with
the angle, but I am interested in a better quality picture. I will be
shooting family group pictures,indoor and outdoor. I am trying to find out
if the quality of the 16-35 is that much better than the other two as the
price might indicate. I am trying, however, to stay away from the EF-S
lenses in case I upgrade my camera.
Thank you in advance for any information.

ji wrote:
> hi
> I have a Canon 20D camera and I'm trying to decide between 3 Canon lenses
> for wide angle shooting.
> #1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
> #2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
> #3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99
> I am now using the kit lens (EF-S 18-55 F 3.5-5.6) and am satisfied with
> the angle, but I am interested in a better quality picture. I will be
> shooting family group pictures,indoor and outdoor. I am trying to find out
> if the quality of the 16-35 is that much better than the other two as the
> price might indicate. I am trying, however, to stay away from the EF-S
> lenses in case I upgrade my camera.
> Thank you in advance for any information.

It depends on whether you need the dramatic 10-17 range. If not then
17-40 is very good. It was my walk around lens.

ji wrote:
> hi
> I have a Canon 20D camera and I'm trying to decide between 3 Canon
> lenses for wide angle shooting.
> #1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
> #2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
> #3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99
> I am now using the kit lens (EF-S 18-55 F 3.5-5.6) and am satisfied
> with the angle, but I am interested in a better quality picture. I
> will be shooting family group pictures,indoor and outdoor. I am
> trying to find out if the quality of the 16-35 is that much better
> than the other two as the price might indicate. I am trying,
> however,
> to stay away from the EF-S lenses in case I upgrade my camera.
> Thank you in advance for any information.

Sounds as if you have answered your own question down to "is the
difference worth it?" Luminous Landscape shows a comparison, I seem to
remember...

Yup:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/16-35.shtml

Seems pretty clear to me the difference is obvious; now you get to
decide about "worth".

--
Frank ess

ji wrote:
> #1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
Not the same, this lense is the only true wideangle of your selection.
It's very good also (see site above eg), with moderate distorsion
(lesser than the others).
If you need wider than the kit lens, this is the only (Canon) option
anyway.

> #2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
> #3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99

According to
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
vs.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...40_4/index.htm
the performance is in many aspects the same on a 20D sensor, and the
question is mainly whether you need the extra stop or not, at a price
of a few dollars more...

Today ji commented courteously on the subject at hand

> I have a Canon 20D camera and I'm trying to decide between
> 3 Canon lenses for wide angle shooting.
> #1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
> #2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
> #3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99
> I am now using the kit lens (EF-S 18-55 F 3.5-5.6) and am
> satisfied with
> the angle, but I am interested in a better quality picture.
> I will be shooting family group pictures,indoor and
> outdoor. I am trying to find out if the quality of the
> 16-35 is that much better than the other two as the price
> might indicate. I am trying, however, to stay away from the
> EF-S lenses in case I upgrade my camera.
> Thank you in advance for any information.

I have the 17-40mm as well as the longer 24-70mm. Both are
superb lenses.

My interest is almost exclusively cars, so while a wider angle
lens might help me get a shot in a tight spot, the apparent
perspective distortion wrecks the "look" I like for cars, so
the 17-40 is about as wide as I can stand.

For the subjects you describe, are you concerned about not
being able to get far enough away to get everything in, hence
you're looking for something pretty wide? If so, please be
aware that the same apparent perspective distortion will
likely make the people in your family shots also look bad, as
it will accentuate anything "sticking" out, such as noses,
chins, ears, a slightly chubby stomach, etc. And, depending on
how tall you are, your indoor pictures may have walls that
look like they're falling over backwards due to you being
higher than the optical center of the picture you're taking.

Apparent perspective distortion can be corrected to some
degree in software, but since the "correction" is only in 2-D,
you often have to go with less correction to avoid distorting
some other part of the picture in an unacceptable way.

If your primary interest is photos of people, your "subjects"
will find the pictures much more flattering if you use the
longest focal length you can and still get everyone in the
group photo. The slightly foreshortened look is why studio
protrait photographers frequently shoot at 85-105mm
equivalent.

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
Ford

Sounds like the dilema of many people out there, including myself.
I would personally go for one the EF choices you have there. Of course,
the price of #3 could be quite an obstacle. Plus with a 20D, distortion
may not be as noticable because of the smaller sized sensor (correct me
if I'm wrong).

Since I'm in the same boat and need this kind of stuff for school, I
think I will buy an E-1 with 14-54 2.8-3.5 for around $1,300 Canadian.
It will be a lot cheaper than investing in a 5D with a 16-35 2.8!
Especially since I won't be making any money off it while I go to
school.

You missed two other possible lenses:
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

If you are after a ultra-wide angle lens, then the Canon 10-22 is the only
one Canon do for the 20D. If you are just after a wide angle lens, then
17mm should be sufficient. I am waiting to read some reviews on the EF-S
17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Big appeture, IS, etc.


"ji" <jimpict.comcast.net> wrote in message
newsu6dnXQnB9WYQqjZnZ2dnUVZ_t-...
>
>
>
> hi
> I have a Canon 20D camera and I'm trying to decide between 3 Canon lenses
> for wide angle shooting.
> #1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
> #2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
> #3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99
> I am now using the kit lens (EF-S 18-55 F 3.5-5.6) and am satisfied with
> the angle, but I am interested in a better quality picture. I will be
> shooting family group pictures,indoor and outdoor. I am trying to find out
> if the quality of the 16-35 is that much better than the other two as the
> price might indicate. I am trying, however, to stay away from the EF-S
> lenses in case I upgrade my camera.
> Thank you in advance for any information.
>
>

> hi
> I have a Canon 20D camera and I'm trying to decide between 3 Canon lenses
> for wide angle shooting.
> #1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
> #2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
> #3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99
> I am now using the kit lens (EF-S 18-55 F 3.5-5.6) and am satisfied with
> the angle, but I am interested in a better quality picture. I will be
> shooting family group pictures,indoor and outdoor. I am trying to find out
> if the quality of the 16-35 is that much better than the other two as the
> price might indicate. I am trying, however, to stay away from the EF-S
> lenses in case I upgrade my camera.

Read this man,
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx

I have the 16-35 f2.8 and it's very good. The above site suggests the
17-40mm produces the same quality - it then comes down to the maximum
apeture that will do it for you.

I'll say the same as I do every time - buy L quality. It seems daft to buy a
£600 camera and stick a £120 lens on the front. L lenses are fantastic -
even if they are a bit big and heavy.

John

In article <ou6dnXQnB9WYQqjZnZ2dnUVZ_t-> "ji" <jimpict.comcast.net> writes:
$#1. EF-S 10-22mm F/3.5-4.5 USM $799.99
$#2. 17-40mm F4 L USM EF $799.99
$#3. 16-35mm F2.8 L USM EF $1,499.99
$ I am now using the kit lens (EF-S 18-55 F 3.5-5.6) and am satisfied with
$the angle, but I am interested in a better quality picture.

If you needed to go wider than what the 18-55 provides, the
10-22 would be a fine choice. But if your need is for a similar
angle but better optics, the 10-22 isn't the right lens.

$ I am trying to find out
$if the quality of the 16-35 is that much better than the other two as the
$price might indicate.

That's not what the price indicates; the price indicates that it's
twice as fast (f/2.8 vs. f/4). There are a number of comparisons
of the 17-40 and the 16-35 on the Web; you can look for them for
more info. Most people who've used both conclude that they're
in the same ballpark, with each one being better than the other
in some ways (for instance, the Luminous Landscape test shows
the 17-40 is better at the wide end and the 16-35 is better at the
long end).

When I was preparing to move from film (with my widest lens
being 28mm) to digital (20D), I knew I'd need a wider lens to retain
the same field of view. I would have loved to have the 16-35 for
its extra stop, but there's no way I could justify the money. So
I got the 17-40. I am pleased with it. It's sharp. Not as
sharp as my 50/1.4, but let's be fair here; you can't expect an
ultrawide zoom to be as sharp as a normal prime. It's definitely
sharper than my 28-135, which is arguably Canon's best consumer-grade
zoom. Its mechanics and construction are what you'd expect from an L
lens.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/