?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Photographers, please, help!

  • Mar. 28th, 2009 at 8:31 AM
D50
paterson_si
All you photo geeks, and I can think of quite a few out there, please help me decide. I got caught.

Canon EF-S 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or Canon EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS USM

I want to buy one of these this week. I am leaning towards 17-55, seems like a better walkaround choice.

Oh, and before March is over, THIS is still available. :)

  • Current Location:Home
  • Current Mood: curious curious
  • Current Music:Radio

Comments

( 18 comments — Leave a comment )
cuboz
Mar. 28th, 2009 12:45 pm (UTC)
Um, er....
| Reply | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 28th, 2009 11:13 pm (UTC)
ok ok :)

I might shoot some shoes for you soon.
| Reply | Parent | Thread
cuboz
Mar. 30th, 2009 02:07 am (UTC)
Woo hooooo!

Om my God! Shooz! :-)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 31st, 2009 10:13 pm (UTC)
LOL
| Reply | Parent | Thread
bluebubbleblue
Mar. 28th, 2009 01:52 pm (UTC)
Get the wide-angle lens! You'll love it. :P
| Reply | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 28th, 2009 11:14 pm (UTC)
10 and 17 is wide angle.... but I think that I will go for the 17... because of it's contstant f2.8

and then... after a few months... also the 10 one. :)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
zedsled
Mar. 28th, 2009 02:26 pm (UTC)
Ditto on the wide-angle choice. Granted, my recommendation is somewhat selfish - I want to see the photos you take with that lens!
| Reply | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 28th, 2009 11:14 pm (UTC)
You will see them soon.

I a few days I think. :)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
cajuncountry
Mar. 28th, 2009 03:36 pm (UTC)
One's $500, the other is $1200!

And what you are looking for, intimate indoor low lite, no flash, that you are soooo good at? Of course the 2.8 is going to be pretty much better for that. But not as good as your 50/1.7! (I'm still in the learning phase with my 2.8. I brought it out with me for the last two nights in low light bars and restaurants, and have not been too impressed with it. But in well lit situations - it's freaking amazing. I need to start playing with the ISO too, my camera will go up to 3200). But like you said for a general walkaround lens, this one can't be beat.

But geography, architecture... then the 10-22 is going to be just incredible, nothing like an amazing wide-angle pic. And where you live and travel to, damn that would be a fantastic option... plus it's about 1/2 the cost.

I know. This didn't help. LOL. But good luck with your choice. :)

| Reply | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 28th, 2009 11:17 pm (UTC)
Hey, Ernie!

Yes, for now I think I'd prefer to stay in my comfort zone, low lite, no flash stuff. Because I really like doing that. 2.8 seems great for that. Not as great as 50mm/1.4, but I would love to "step away" a bit at times. I try hard not to go higher than 200 with ISO, although my cam offers (completely useless) ISO 25600. Imagine the noise.

How about buying 17-55 now and then 10-22 in a couple of months? :)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
cajuncountry
Mar. 29th, 2009 10:13 am (UTC)
Sounds like a plan!

I used my 2.8 last night at a dinner..... and it was wonderful! Just about the limit of low light, and I pushed the ISO to 3200. Worked splendidly.

| Reply | Parent | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 29th, 2009 10:16 am (UTC)
So 2.8 it is. :) It also took some disappointing moments with my 1.4 till I endlessly devoted myself to that lens. :)

So, when do we see the pics?
| Reply | Parent | Thread
cajuncountry
Mar. 29th, 2009 10:30 am (UTC)
sneek peek. shhhh..



darn it! can't make it work, and I have to get to work. Will try later. :(













Edited at 2009-03-29 10:31 am (UTC)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 29th, 2009 10:38 am (UTC)
ok ok later then :)

HUGS
| Reply | Parent | Thread
mikiedoggie
Mar. 28th, 2009 04:00 pm (UTC)
That's a hard decision. I take it you do not have any "ultra-wide" angle lenses you can use? That being said, I think the 17-55 f/2.8 is a sweet sweet lens.
| Reply | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 28th, 2009 11:19 pm (UTC)
I also have a 18-55 lens, but it's 18-55mm/f4.5-5.6 and I don't really like it. Plus, I gave it to Igor along with 450D body. So... I might go for that f2.8 stuff now and buy 10.22mm a bit later. :)

Edited at 2009-03-28 11:19 pm (UTC)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
(Anonymous)
Mar. 28th, 2009 08:55 pm (UTC)
10-22 or 17-55 thats the question
and there ain't no standard answer. But i would go for 10-22 i think. I know how you take pictures so 17-55 fits to walk around shooting without changing lenses as much but i think you have to change lenses anyway at 50 cause there you wanna use the 1.7.
The reason i would go for 10-22 is that you know the subject and if you want wide angle or not and when you choose wide angle this is your lence.
Greetings Marinus

| Reply | Thread
paterson_si
Mar. 28th, 2009 11:19 pm (UTC)
Re: 10-22 or 17-55 thats the question
I am still undecided, but our ispq chat opened some windows for me. :)
| Reply | Parent | Thread
( 18 comments — Leave a comment )