lens comparison

[flash]

I want to pick your brains again, whats your thoughts on the comparative capture width of the canon 10-22mm lens compared to the canon 20-35mm, I guess what I am asking is does the 20-35 capture as much as the 10-22, which is the better of the two for landscape! I have an offer to purchase the 20-35 reasonable, would it be better to wait and buy the 10-22

[bigdazzler]

I dont know dick about Canon stuff mate, but going from the focal length Im guessing its an EF lens yea ?? That means on a crop body (like your 50D) the effective focal length will be about 30-55 ish .. so no it wont capture the same FOV as a 10-22 on a crop body. On a FF body however (like the 5DMKII), it will look pretty similar to how the 10-22 does on a crop body. Make sense ??

[flash]

thanks Darren yes it is an EF lens, and your statement makes perfect sense, I think I will wait a couple of weeks and buy the 10-22mm, I was trying to save a few hundred but in the end I guess I gets what I pays for, I only want to buy this gear once!

[JM Tran]

there is a 20-35 EF, and a 20-35 L lens, naturally the L one fares better with better build quality too

the 10-22 will outperform the 20-35 EF due to it being much newer and better optics etc, and less barrel distortion. I dont know about the 20-35 L as I have never used that one before, but it is also an older design.

[flash]

I'm pretty sure the one on offer to me is just the 20-35 EF!

[bigdazzler]

thanks Darren yes it is an EF lens, and your statement makes perfect sense, I think I will wait a couple of weeks and buy the 10-22mm, I was trying to save a few hundred but in the end I guess I gets what I pays for, I only want to buy this gear once!

A MAJOR thing to consider sooner rather than later, is if you plan on upgrading to FF bodies down the track before you invest large amounts of money in EF-S lenses. If that is a distant option, and I realise its a different kettle of fish budget wise, maybe consider the 16-35L ?? That would be 25-55ish on your 50D. Is that wide enough for now ?? Just throwing another option out there.

[flash]

oh hell I've only just bought the 50d, cripes if the missus finds out I'm thinking of updating already she'll have my ears for candleholders! I will probably update to a larger unit at a much later date (he says looking nervously around for the boss) but for now I will just buy a couple of lenses for this one! by the time I update the cameras will take the piccy themselves

[bigdazzler]

fair enough .. wouldnt wanna be responsible for the loss of a mans ears. :D

[flash]

or other dangling rarely used paraphernalia!

[Tannin]

I dont know dick about Canon stuff mate, but going from the focal length Im guessing its an EF lens yea ?? That means on a crop body (like your 50D) the effective focal length will be about 30-55 ish .. so no it wont capture the same FOV as a 10-22 on a crop body. On a FF body however (like the 5DMKII), it will look pretty similar to how the 10-22 does on a crop body. Make sense ??

Mod note: redacted personal comments.

Focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length is focal length . Got it?

Question 1: what is the difference in focal length between a 20mm Canon EF lens and a 20mm Minolta lens and a 20mm Pentax screw-mount lens and a 20mm Canon EF lens and a 20MM Olympus Micro 4/3rds lens?

Answer 1: Nothing. Zip. Nil. Nada. Zero. There is no diffrence.

Question 2: what is the difference in field of view between a 20mm Canon EF lens and a 20mm Canon EF-S lens and a 20mm Tamron lens?

Answer 2: See Answer 1.

Question 3: On a Canon 50D, what is the effective focal length of a Canon EF 20-35mm lens?

Answer 3: 20-35mm.

Question 4: On a Canon 5D, what is the effective focal length of a Canon EF 20-35mm lens?

Answer 4: See Answer 3.

Question 5: On a Canon 300D, what is the effective focal length of a Canon EF 20-35mm lens?

Answer 5: See Answer 3.

Question 6: On a Canon 1D III, what is the effective focal length of a Canon EF 20-35mm lens?

Answer 6: See Answer 3.

Question 7: On a Canon film camera, what is the effective focal length of a Canon EF 20-35mm lens?

Answer 7: See Answer 3.

Question 8: On Pentax 645 medium format camera, what is the effective focal length of a Pentax 20-35mm lens?

Answer 8: See Answer 3.

Question 9: On an Olympus 4/3rds format camera, what is the effective focal length of a Zukio 20-35mm lens?

Answer 9: See Answer 3.

Question 10: Why does a 20-35mm lens on a full-frame body like a 5DII have a similar field of view to a 10-22mm lens on a 1.6 crop body like a 50D?

Answer 10: It doesn't. The field of view at the long end is similar, but the fields of view at the short ends are very different. To have about the same fields of view, the two lenses would have to be 20-35 and 13-22, or 10-22 and 16-35. At the wide end, 4mm is a big difference - it equates to a 13 degree wider angle of view.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flash, the 20-35 doesn't offer you anything you haven't got already. It is no faster than your existing 18-200. It is not as long, it is not as wide, and it probably has equal or even inferior image quality - superzooms are not famous for IQ, but the 18-200 glass is said to be amongst the better ones of the superzooms, and it is a much newer design. Chances are, there will be nothing the 20-35 does that you can't already do better with your current lens.

The 10-22, on the other hand, is vastly wider than the 18-200, and offers significantly better image quality too. Like the 18-200 (and the 20-35) it is a fairly slow lens, but that doesn't much matter at these focal lengths, and the 10-22 is famous for its optical quality. It has an excellent USM focus motor with full-time manual override (the sole virtue of the 20-35, which I failed to mention above, is that it too has a USM motor), and very high build quality.

If you are worried about upgrading to full frame sometime soon and want a lens that works on full-frame too, then your only wide-angle choice is a Sigma 12-24. Nothing else gives you true ultra-wide on the 50D (but at only 12mm on the wide end it is still quite a lot narrower than a 10-22). The Canon-branded alternatives are worthy lenses in their own way, but not really useful to you: the EF 17-40/4L is quite cheap for an L Series model but barely any wider than you 18-200; the EF 16-35/2.8L is not really useful on a crop body - only wide, not ultra-wide - and very expensive, not to mention heavy.

Short answer: save up for a 10-22. If you go FF one day, you won't have any trouble selling it, it's a great lens.

[etherial]

+1 to what Tony said. Don't be fooled by the crop sensor vs full frame issue. It is important to understand. Since you have a 50D we can compare apples with apples on that camera (and its sensor). The 10-22 will be vastly different to the 20-35. And at the wide end, every mm counts, the different between 10 and 12 for example is quite a lot and very noticable, but 100 to 102 for example you won't even notice.

If you want wide angle, buy a 10-xx (there are a few options, from Canon, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina). The 20-35 will be useless to you.

[flash]

yep that backs up my thoughts as well, the 10-22 has been spruked everywhere as the better lens and deep down I knew that was so, I only want to buy good quality and only want to buy once, hence my query in here, I will update all my gear in the future but I will have all the fun again when I do, then I will sell my gear and have everything shiny and new, I am still in the "learning" stage, reading everything in here as well as other areas, so I am wide open to good advice, but my B/S detector is as yet not fully functional!, I appreciate all input!

[bigdazzler]

Mod note: redacted personal comments..

*sigh*

Mod note: redacted personal comments.

Reading my post back .. I certainly could have been a little clearer in regards to FOV at the short end of the respective lenses on different size sensors, and maybe I should have used the word equivalent in there somewhere as well .. but please mate, Mod note: redacted personal comments.

[Tannin]

^ Yes indeed I can, but infrequently, and then only after serious, usually sustained provocation. Think about it.

[bigdazzler]

^ Yes indeed I can, but infrequently, and then only after serious, usually sustained provocation. Think about it.

Whatever that means. I usually respect your opinion and read your posts with interest, but your attitude and demeanor negates every last ounce of your knowledge mate. How about showing people some respect for a change.

If youre implying that somehow Ive provoked you in some way (I dont remember one time, let alone "sustained") well Im not sure what to say ...

As I say, its easy on the internet isnt it. I wonder if youd display such bravado in person. I doubt it, people like you never do.

[etherial]

Tony can get a bit wound up by this issue. I recall asking the same questions about focal length and field of view etc not long after I joined here. Tony replied in a very similar fashion to above, and I thought - Gee, what did I do to deserve that?

I've since met Tony at a meet and find him very helpful and easy to talk to. Sometimes the internet can distort the feel of a message, but I agree Darren, Tony, you probably got a bit rude there for no real reason (that I can see anyway!).

Anyway, the OP has the answers now, so time to move on.

[Steve Axford]

In this case, being right should hold some weight. Tony has said the same thing so many times that those of us who have been here a while should be able to remember it, or at least stay quiet if we can't. It would be really nice if threads like this stayed with the facts instead of having lots of different opinions, most of which are wrong. This would make things much easier for those "new to photography" to learn.

[Tannin]

Hmmm ... apparently it isn't obvious, so I better explain.

It is one thing to make a mistake. Nobody minds that. It is entirely another thing to jump in and provide comprehensively wrong advice to a beginner because you don't have a clue about the subject. Your posts:

Did not understand the concept of focal length, and went out of their way to muddy the water further - it's hard enough mastering these concepts as is, never mind being actively misled.
Pretended to but did not understand the difference between EF and EF-S lenses.
Got the relative angles of view - which is the key question here - quite significantly wrong
Provided the OP with entirely inappropriate advice which, if left uncorrected, might well have left him in position of having purchased a completely useless $700is lens. Now you may not think $700 is a lot, but I reckon it's a fair whack to drop on a lens that does absolutely nothing that the OP can't already do as well or better with his existing lens.


If a complete beginner jumped into a thread with a similar load of misleading nonsense, I would (naturally) gently point out the problems and lead the OP in a more useful direction. It is usually reasonable to assume that the OP will realise the incorrect advice is from a beginner, and discount it appropriately, so it's no big deal. It is quite a different thing when it is a senior member with thousands of posts.

Mod note: redacted personal comments.

[flash]

sorry folks, I'll think very hard before I ask another question!

[etherial]

Dave, mate no! Your question was quite valid, and the whole issue of focal length and field of view etc takes a bit to get your head around. Don't be discouraged by this. As I always say, listen to everyone and make up your own mind what advice to take.

Cheers,
Mic

[kiwi]

I need more popcorn

[nickant44]

At great personal risk, might I suggest the Sigma 8-16mm?
It's a very recent release with at least one good review online so far:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/515-sigma816f4556apsc

[Tannin]

^ It's a little bit short on the long end .... but .. ohh .. the possibilities of that wide, wide, w i d e wide end ...... Probably cheaper than the 10-22 as well. Why not?

[bigdazzler]

sorry folks, I'll think very hard before I ask another question!

I apologise that your thread went off the rails mate ... as for Tonys advice, listen to him cause he does know what hes talking about.

Mod note: redacted personal comments. I apologise if I confused you in any way.

[Kym]

I've been out with Nel at an Aid for Africa fund-raiser dinner dance. All nice.
Now I get home... and I just did a bunch of heavy edits of this thread, I really wish I did not have to!
Stick to the facts in a polite way.

_____________

Ok, focal length is just that. The crop factor does not multiply the FL, it only appears that way.
Silly camera marketing seems to say it does.
Dave's post here illustrates it... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=36999

[bigdazzler]

Stick to the facts in a polite way.

Thats the very least that we can all do.

_____________


Ok, focal length is just that. The crop factor does not multiply the FL, it only appears that way.

And thats probably what I should have said in the first place, and included the word equivalent somewhere in place of effective. My bad. Apart from alluding to the fact that a 20mm lens on a FF body will appear similar to a 10mm lens on a crop body (quite obviously incorrect, and a mistake on my part :o) I dont see what I said to receive the barrage I received.

On a 50D, yes 10-22 is an UWA lens. On a 5D/1D camera a 16-35 is a WA lens. If you want super wide on a 5D, Tony is quite obviously correct, the Sigma 12-24 is the only available option. (as far as I know anyway ?? and Im about to buy one for my FF A850)

So again .. I apologise flash if I confused you with my initial post.

So summising, I guess if you want UWA .. as Tony says, the Canon 10-22 is the one you want for your 50D. Another one to maybe consider is the Sigma 10-20. Great lens with a really good reputation .. I loved mine until I upgraded to FF.

Peace :D