|
|
#1 |
|
Canon EF-S 10-22mm
I just bought the EF-S 10-22mm this afternoon. What a fantastic and fun lens!
After weeks of playing and trying it out in the store, I finally decided to buy it. It's pretty amazing how wide the coverage is on this lens. I can't wait to take it on holiday somewhere. It's a real shame I didn't have it when I visited India last January. I now have this lens, the EF 50mm f/1.4 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for more general use. I'm pretty much set for the time being. I haven't found the need for anything longer than the Tamron...not yet anyway
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Quote:
Sweet, that's similar to my miniscule lens collection! I have a Tokina 12-24 mm f/4 that's like your Canon, and the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 macro rather than the Tamron. I haven't found much of a need to be able to reach further than 70 mm either, and the times I did wish I had a longer lens meant that only the 70-200 mm f/2.8 telephoto would do the trick, and not slower telephotos like a 70-300 mm f/3.5-5.6 or Nikon 18-200 mm f/4-5.6, which is a lens I originally planned on getting when deciding to go with Nikon. I'm not going to buy a 70-200 mm VR f/2.8 though, since it's too expensive for the few times I find I need it. Plus I don't think I'd carry that monster around with me all the time in the slim slim chance that I might use it. ![]() Gonna get myself a 105 mm macro lens of some sort next, I think. If I can, I'd like the Nikon 105 mm VR macro lens, but I guess the VR isn't THAT useful for macro work since the optical stabilization doesn't work when using it at 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction ratio, although it would be useful in non-macro situations.What else are you thinking of getting? I'd shoot a lot more first before getting another lens, just to see what your desires are.
__________________
"Hard? It's supposed to be hard. Hard is what makes it great!" - Tom Hanks. |
||
|
|
0
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Quote:
|
||
|
|
0
|
![]() |
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro US vs. Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 | Mr. B | Digital Photography | 7 | Sep 21, 2007 11:29 PM |
| Canon EF-S 10-22 vs EF 15mm Fisheye? | ChrisBrightwell | Digital Photography | 13 | Jul 23, 2007 07:39 AM |
| FS: Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM Wide-Angle lens, LIKE NEW | seenew | Marketplace Archive 2 | 14 | Feb 17, 2007 01:37 PM |
| FS: Canon EF 28-90, Canon EF-S 18-55, extras (USA) | seenew | Marketplace Archive 2 | 6 | Aug 26, 2006 01:03 PM |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.






I have a Tokina 12-24 mm f/4 that's like your Canon, and the Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 macro rather than the Tamron. I haven't found much of a need to be able to reach further than 70 mm either, and the times I did wish I had a longer lens meant that only the 70-200 mm f/2.8 telephoto would do the trick, and not slower telephotos like a 70-300 mm f/3.5-5.6 or Nikon 18-200 mm f/4-5.6, which is a lens I originally planned on getting when deciding to go with Nikon. I'm not going to buy a 70-200 mm VR f/2.8 though, since it's too expensive for the few times I find I need it. Plus I don't think I'd carry that monster around with me all the time in the slim slim chance that I might use it. 
If I can, I'd like the Nikon 105 mm VR macro lens, but I guess the VR isn't THAT useful for macro work since the optical stabilization doesn't work when using it at 1:1 or 1:2 reproduction ratio, although it would be useful in non-macro situations.
Linear Mode

