Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

New Lens, Digital Rebel

Jun 30, 2005 8:30AM PDT

I have a Digital Rebel with the original 18-55mm lens and a 75-300mm lens. With a years experience behind me I am considering investing in a good lens now.

Last year I did OK getting shots of fireworks, parades and more. Now I am placing myself in a time crunch and wondering if July 4, (parades, fireworks) and a family wedding (not a huge deal but I'd like to take a few good pics in the church) are a good reason for a new Canon lens? I am looking at the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus Lens. This would be for the above, people shots, landscapes and that sort of thing. As I take more pictures I see more interest in certain things. These are what I listed as most popular. But it is hard to determine what lens is a best addition.

I am interested in opinions before I spend $800+ (UV, polarizer, hood, etc...).

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Lots of Sample Shots with the 10-22
Jun 30, 2005 8:50AM PDT
- Collapse -
I like the 17-85mm myself. It will go almost as wide as the
Jun 30, 2005 1:10PM PDT

10-22, and will also do a better job of pulling in distant objects. It would give good coverage out to the the area where your 75-300mm works. It is stablilized and has USM.

- Collapse -
A prefered choice !
Jul 2, 2005 2:09AM PDT

I suggest that you go for Canon 17-40 F4L instead with slightly higher price. The extra-wide zoom lense, 10-22mm EFS, shows a great deal of distortion and strange color effect when shooting in the dimmer light. Meanwhile, I don't suggest to go any lense whose F below 4 either, consider the price performance - too expensive and rarely use. Unless you need to take the picture in the dark without using any external flash, you'll need Canon 16-35 F2.8L. Photographers mostly shoot their pictures at the F-stop from 4 to 16.

If you want to take seriously portrait type of picture, Canon 85mm F1.8 USM will be an ideal. Good luck.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I have seen no problems with photos taken by the 10-22.
Jul 2, 2005 2:43AM PDT
- Collapse -
Try this..
Jul 2, 2005 3:52PM PDT

Look at border & edge of picture closely compare that to the regular wide-angle lense. You'll see some distortion. Meanwhile, the picture's color look a bit gloomy comparing to other Canon L-lenses and regular lense, shooting under the insufficient light condition with tripod.

- Collapse -
Ummm, I would not expect it to compare favorably with an L
Jul 3, 2005 5:11AM PDT

lense, but it doesn't cost what an L lense costs either. The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus costs $1,400 at B&H. The 10-22 costs $800. I just took some wide angle shots which I will look more closely at.

- Collapse -
You were right !
Jul 3, 2005 3:40PM PDT

Yes.. It's true that the picture quality shooting by the Canon EFS lenses isn't comparable to that by EF-L-series lenses. But, not every L-series is good for all kind of use.

Canon 16-35 mm F2.8L overcomes Canon 17-40 F4L under the condition that light is extremely minimum. But, overall, 17-40 F4L are more common use and nearly $4-500 cheaper. Going for more F-stop eventually trades off the picture contrast.Under the outdoor light, 17-40mm F4L shoots better than 16-35mm F2.8L. So, it depends upon how far you want to shoot and spend for. Upon my knowledge, the design of wide angle-lense is very difficult. The shooting pictures show lots of distortion and unrealistic look, no exception even a very good lense, quite expensive, like Canon 14-mm F2.8L ( around $ 2,100 ). I guess that people view them differently. So, it depends solely on each individual's taste.