| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2007 07:15:33 AM · #1 |
Hi there.
I was wondering if I should buy the EF-s 10-22mm for my 350D or wait and see if they update it.
It's been around for quite the while now and what's been holding me back is the /f stops. Do you think there's any chance they'll update the EF-S 10-22mm to be f/2.8 to match it's EF counterpart?
Or am I living in a dream world and should just buy it already? :)
best,
Sindri |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 07:19:01 AM · #2 |
I'd like to know as well. (bump)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 08:07:14 AM · #3 |
My personal feeling on this lens is that you should definitely just buy it and not wait or hope for an update. It is by far one of my most used and most favorite lenses. It is absolutely awesome and well worth the money...
You will definitely love this lens.
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 13:08:17. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 08:08:07 AM · #4 |
No, they won't be updating it anytime soon - it's not that old as it is!
Two reasons for fast lenses are for control of DOF (which is not an issue with a wide angle lens - too much DOF is more likely the issue) and the other is extra light - the 3.5-4.5 is 1/3 to 1 1/3 stop slower, and at 22mm if you need that 1 1/3 stop canon makes the 17-55 2.8 IS or tamron as the 17-50 2.8 or sigma 18-50 2.8. The 1/3 stop at 10mm is not an issue - remember, you can handhold at 1/focal lenght so this lens can be handled at 1/10 second!!
I used mine at the NAIAS and got some great shots
 
 
Message edited by author 2007-02-05 13:14:00.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 08:09:34 AM · #5 |
| IMO, there's probably little chance of this being updated. Unlike camera bodies, lenses don't get updates nearly as often, and when they do it's usually not a complete optical remake, as changing it to f/2.8 would be. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 08:30:21 AM · #6 |
*sigh*
I was really hoping that someone would say: "I hear it'll be soon" :P
I really love wide angle photography and I really do enjoy shooting at night, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 could mean a whole ISO change if I'm shooting at very low light and long exposure.
But then again, since that is the deal. I guess I'll just buy it as soon as I get the money for it.
Thanks guys. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 08:33:04 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Svanurinn:
*sigh*
I was really hoping that someone would say: "I hear it'll be soon" :P
I really love wide angle photography and I really do enjoy shooting at night, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 could mean a whole ISO change if I'm shooting at very low light and long exposure.
But then again, since that is the deal. I guess I'll just buy it as soon as I get the money for it.
Thanks guys. |
If you are shooting long exposure in low light, you would be using a tripod anyway with low ISO and a mid range f/stop.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 08:33:15 AM · #8 |
I similarly doubt they will update it.
Making a 10-22mm f/2.8 would be a very difficult undertaking (particularly if you want it to produce good images wide open at 10mm), and as others have said not really worth the effort. It would be very expensive, big and heavy - and most people wouldn't see the value over the existing lens.
I'm not sure Canon really need to produce many more EF-S lenses at all; existing EF lenses are fine at longer focal lengths and most of the obvious holes have been filled now. Maybe there is room for a fisheye or a very wide range zoom (18-200 anyone?).
I'm wondering whether to get a 10-22 myself (or the 10-20mm sigma), but since my housemate owns one I can just borrow his for the time being :).
splidge
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 08:38:55 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Two reasons for fast lenses are for control of DOF (which is not an issue with a wide angle lens - too much DOF is more likely the issue) |
Isn't that kind of the point? If there's any "flaw" with the 10-22mm, it's that it has too much DOF even wide open. So if they DID make an f/2.8 version, this would be an improvement in that area. But it's not really a problem anyway, 'cuz for the most part with an extreme WA lens, when you are looking for shallower DOF it's in order to have an in-focus, up-close foreground against an OOF background, and you can easily accomplish that with a little creative front focus...
R.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 09:35:45 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Svanurinn:
*sigh*
I was really hoping that someone would say: "I hear it'll be soon" :P
I really love wide angle photography and I really do enjoy shooting at night, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 could mean a whole ISO change if I'm shooting at very low light and long exposure.
But then again, since that is the deal. I guess I'll just buy it as soon as I get the money for it.
Thanks guys. |
If you are shooting long exposure in low light, you would be using a tripod anyway with low ISO and a mid range f/stop. |
Of course I'm using a tripod.
but sometimes 30sec isn't enough, and then you'll have to upper your ISO, then you get grain and that's where the extra f stop could help out. "get a remote to use with bulb then" some may say. But I want the wide angles :)
But yeah, since you guys don't think it'll be updated. I'll just try and get my hands on one ASAP :) |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 07:38:29 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Svanurinn:
Of course I'm using a tripod.
but sometimes 30sec isn't enough, and then you'll have to upper your ISO, then you get grain and that's where the extra f stop could help out. "get a remote to use with bulb then" some may say. But I want the wide angles :)
But yeah, since you guys don't think it'll be updated. I'll just try and get my hands on one ASAP :) |
You are talking about one stop here. The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is only one stop. I think the situations where you could get an exposure or not get it based on that one stop would be very rare. If 30 seconds is not long enough to make an exposure, you are working in a rather rare situation. Maybe you are trying to make star trails or something?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 07:47:02 PM · #12 |
It's a wonderful lens!
Buy it.
i use mine a load.
I use it loads! |
|
