$1K Here, $1K There, Pretty Soon You're Talking Real Money!!

[ronlane]

Snerd, have you looked at Sigma or Tokina or some of the other brands for FF UWA's? I have a Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 that is a FF lens and I really like it. I got mine used and it was about $350 or so.

 

[D-B-J]

Snerd, have you looked at Sigma or Tokina or some of the other brands for FF UWA's? I have a Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5 that is a FF lens and I really like it. I got mine used and it was about $350 or so.

What about tamron's new 15-30?

 

[ronlane]

Not sure if it is ff or not, but I've looked at their lenses a few times. Nothing that I could review for you though.

 

[Derrel]

From the couple reviews I've read, the newer f/4 IS 16-35 is apparently, one of Canon's very finest wide zooms, with very good center and edge performance and super-low chromatic aberration, AND a really good IS system that works great. Like a lot of people, I see IS/OS/VC/VR as a tool to be used for several things: first off, for the best possible panning shots; for shooting well stopped down (f/11 to f/22) to pull deeeeeep depth of field in places where tripods are either not allowed or are impractical for whatever reason; for use in the wind, or when shooting out of breath, or aboard boats, trains, ferry boats, or other unstable shooting platforms, and for using with slow shutter speeds when dragging the shutter with flash, so for shooting f/8 or f/11 at 1/4 to 1/8 second at boosted ISO values, stuff like that. So to me, the IMage Stabilizer feature is actually MORE-important than a marginally usable f/2.8 aperture. There are people that **consistently** deny the benefits of in-lens stabilization, repeatedly; I think these people are firmly rooted in a narrow-minded, willful ignorance of how to UTILIZE new TECHNOLOGY for positive benefit. It's a weird mental disconnect they suffer from, willfully downplaying ANY usefulness for in-lens stabilization. So, you'll get a lot of bad advice telling you that "f/2.8" is worth more than a lens that can deliver sharp images hand-held at 1/4 to 1/8, or in the wind, or while breathing hard, or when panning or when dragging the shutter with slow-synch flash,etc. NOT every single problem in the world is best solved by taking 45 seconds to set up a tripod for non-moving subject matter.

Tamron 15-30? I have not seen any MTF charts for it, but in that range, a lens needs to be at least decent optically, to gain any real traction as a third-party lens. Without Canon's L-series red stripe or Nikon's gold ring, an independent lens lacks the automatic, built-in pedigree of a Canon or Nikon top-shelf model, so, one would expect the Tamron has been designed and built to be GOOD; and it needs to be because of what the camera makers offer in that slot.

 

[D-B-J]

Not sure if it is ff or not, but I've looked at their lenses a few times. Nothing that I could review for you though.

It is in fact full frame.

 

[D-B-J]

From the couple reviews I've read, the newer f/4 IS 16-35 is apparently, one of Canon's very finest wide zooms, with very good center and edge performance and super-low chromatic aberration, AND a really good IS system that works great. Like a lot of people, I see IS/OS/VC/VR as a tool to be used for several things: first off, for the best possible panning shots; for shooting well stopped down (f/11 to f/22) to pull deeeeeep depth of field in places where tripods are either not allowed or are impractical for whatever reason; for use in the wind, or when shooting out of breath, or aboard boats, trains, ferry boats, or other unstable shooting platforms, and for using with slow shutter speeds when dragging the shutter with flash, so for shooting f/8 or f/11 at 1/4 to 1/8 second at boosted ISO values, stuff like that. SO to me, the IMage Stabilizer feature is actually MORE-important than a marginally usable f/2.8 aperture.

Tamron 15-30? I have not seen any MTF charts for it, but in that range, a lens needs to be at least decent optically, to gain any real traction as a third-party lens. Without Canon's L-series red stripe or Nikon's gold ring, an independent lens lacks the automatic, built-in pedigree of a Canon or Nikon top-shelf model, so, one would expect the Tamron has been designed and built to be GOOD; and it needs to be because of what the camera makers offer in that slot.

I too agree that IS/VR/VC/OS is highly important, and on a wide angle I view it as more important than a 2.8 aperture. I've used the VR capabilities of my 16-35 lens while shooting on boats many a times, and am always impressed. I've shot it at 1/10 on the top of the boat while it's rocking and rolling and the images are tack sharp. To me that's well worth sacrificing the 2.8 aperture. It's been an absolute necessary tool at times and I'm glad to have it as an option. I think ALL lenses should have image stabilization now.

 

[snerd]

Actually, the IS wasn't as important for me, as I use my heavy tripod for landscaping. However, I bet it'll come in handy when needed.

 

[xzyragon]

I use my 10-22 a lot, and it's parked at or above f7.1 most of the time. The only time I drop down is in low light, but I'd rather have a prime for that anyway.

I also mostly shoot landscapes and outdoor action sports though, so I'm biased.

 

[snerd]

I've got a 10-22, but I'm finding I hardly ever pick up my 7D lately. I used to always take it along, but have stopped doing so. My bag is so much lighter minus the 7D and 2 EFS lenses!!

 

[xzyragon]

I've got a 10-22, but I'm finding I hardly ever pick up my 7D lately. I used to always take it along, but have stopped doing so. My bag is so much lighter minus the 7D and 2 EFS lenses!!

says the guy with the 5D...

Sell your 10-22 to offset the cost of your 16-35 f4. Only reasons i could see you whipping out your 7D would be for far-away action shots.

 

[snerd]

I've got a 10-22, but I'm finding I hardly ever pick up my 7D lately. I used to always take it along, but have stopped doing so. My bag is so much lighter minus the 7D and 2 EFS lenses!!

says the guy with the 5D...

Sell your 10-22 to offset the cost of your 16-35 f4. Only reasons i could see you whipping out your 7D would be for far-away action shots.

I like the 7D with the 70-200 for my grandson's football. Great shots from the sidelines! But he backed out and didn't play this year. Bummer. And I also use it with the Siggy 150-500 for birding. So many ways to enjoy photography, so little time!