Please help me.

[Anthonyhnj]

Hi, I am a former canon 5dII with a 24-70 user. About 2 plus years ago I sold all my canon gear and bought into micro 4/3's I recently decided I wanted to move back to using dslr and will sell off my m4/3's gear. With recent price drops, I picked up a 60d for 699.00.

Here's where I need your help.  I am so undecided on lens selection with the crop factor. I love shooting wide to sometimes ultra wide.   I picked up for the time being the 40 2.8 just to play around with because it was so cheap. Not a bad lens for 150.00, only problem is I find it a little long for my liking.

Here's what I was thinking and here's where I really need you help.  I was thinking on getting the 10-22 for UWA to wide and also getting the 17-40 for my day to day walking around. Do these two lenses overlap to much, am I better off getting the 10-22 with either the 24 usm is or the 28 1.8. I feel the primes are not that wide on the crop body. What are your thoughts and your recommendations.

I also shoot macros and will get the 60macro and for the long end for when I need it will get either the 70-200 f4 usm is or the 70-300 usm is.

Thanks for your help,
Anthony

[bseitz234]

10-22 is the widest rectilinear lens you can get, AFAIK, so if you want that true UWA coverage without something like the 8-15 or a prime 8mm fisheye, then it's a great lens, and will get you 16mm FF equivalent, which is pretty darn wide.

The widest I have is the 17-55, which I have been very happy with, and which is wide enough for me. Even if you get the 10-22, there's so little overlap in focal length, I'd say you should consider the following: 17-40 or 17-55 for general purpose first, and then 10-22 for wide angle if you find 17 on crop isn't wide enough.

EF 17-40 f/4L  vs EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS L :

advantages of 17-40:
FF compatible, should you go that way in the future
weather sealed
less expensive

advantages of 17-55:
longer on the tele end
2.8 max aperture
3-stop IS

for me, I decided the 2.8 max aperture and additional 15mm of range were worth the cost. IS wasn't super important, but is nice to have. I have no intention of going FF (my next body will be a 7d2 whenever that comes out... for now I'm sticking with my 7d.) You just have to ask yourself what you want/need, and which is more appropriate. Or neither, really- who am I to tell you what to consider.

Just my two cents.

[florianbieler.de]

Definitely that 10-22 for ultra wide purposes and I might throw in a 18-50 Tamron instead of a 17-40 Canon there.

[RS2021]

17-40L is a good call ...has a broad usable focal range on a crop body. Add a 24mm or 28mm faster prime and you will be happy. 28mm f1.8 gets a bad rap but these are overstated. It is a good fast lens on a crop and best approximates the normal FOV. With both, you also ensure usability with future Full Frame, should you upgrade.

If your budget allows, consider the 16-35II f/2.8 instead of 17-40 f/4, you will then have two fast lenses. But the f4 lens is no slouch and both are great walk arounds for crops.

Cheers.

[TrumpetPower!]

I'm not a crop shooter, but I've heard that the only reason the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't have a red ring is because it's got an EF-S mount. If I was a crop shooter, it'd be at the top of my short list for a standard zoom.

The 17-40 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8 are both too short on the long end for my tastes as a standard zoom, and f/4 is getting rather slow for APS-C.

Since you're experienced as a photographer, you might also want to consider a holy trinity of primes. The problem with APS-C is that your choices at the wide end aren't fantastic. The Canon 20mm is weak and the good 20mm primes are expensive and / or manual focus. You've got some good choices for a normal, especially the new 28mm. The Shorty McForty is a good lens but an awkward length on APS-C, but you've got no shortage of superlative 50s to choose from for a telephoto.

Cheers,

b&

[Random Orbits]

10-22 matches well with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and a 70-200 set up.  The overlap is nice because it reduces the number of lens swaps.

Other good UWA choices are Sigma's 8-16 and Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8.

For macros, I'd pick a EF 100mm macro over the EF-S 60mm macro.  The increased working distance is nice to have.

If you are considering moving back to FF in the future, then I'd opt for a 24-70 rather than the 17-55.

[neuroanatomist]

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom lens for APS-C.  The EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is a close second.  Both are optically equivalent to L-series lenses (as is the 10-22mm).  In fact, when comparing them on the same APS-C body, the 17-55mm outperforms both the 17-40L and the 24-105L. 

I'm a big proponent of getting the lens(es) you need for the body you have.  If you're getting a FF camera next month, that's one thing.  But if you're getting a FF camera 'someday...maybe..." then in the wide to normal range, an EF-S lens is the best choice, and the three EF-S lenses maned above hold their value quite well.

[AlanF]

, and the three EF-S lenses maned above hold their value quite well.

Neuro, are you lionising lenses again?

[well_dunno]

If you need fast zooms +1 for EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS (or the Tamron equivalent without the vibration compensation - it is a sharp lens) otherwise I would say 15-85 or the 24-105...

Also, I went for the 100mm non L as macro lens and never looked back...

Lastly, I have a 70-200 f/4 IS which is a great lens by all means but with the 70-300 L one does not loose much for the 100 mm gain on the long end... IMHO anyway...

Cheers!

[TrumpetPower!]

I'm a big proponent of getting the lens(es) you need for the body you have.

Amen.

It's one thing to get a 50 as a short telephoto portrait lens for APS-C with a thought at the back of your mind that you might also like it as a normal lens on a full-frame body.

It's another thing entirely to get a 24-105 as a non-standard standard zoom for APS-C because one day you want to have a full-frame body. The 24-105, as wonderful as it is on a full-frame body (indeed, probably the best walkabout standard zoom you can get), is probably the absolute worst choice for a standard zoom one could make for APS-C.

Similarly, the 16-35 just isn't a good standard zoom for APS-C. It goes from moderately wide to normal, which isn't really a very useful range for most circumstances. I'm sure there are those who find it useful for certain circumstances and any pro will work with the tools one has...but, when one has a choice, that's not the choice to make.

Cheers,

b&

[neuroanatomist]

, and the three EF-S lenses maned above hold their value quite well.

Neuro, are you lionising lenses again?

What, you think it doesn't happen?   

[Ian_of_glos]

Hi, I am a former canon 5dII with a 24-70 user. About 2 plus years ago I sold all my canon gear and bought into micro 4/3's I recently decided I wanted to move back to using dslr and will sell off my m4/3's gear. With recent price drops, I picked up a 60d for 699.00.

Here's where I need your help.  I am so undecided on lens selection with the crop factor. I love shooting wide to sometimes ultra wide.   I picked up for the time being the 40 2.8 just to play around with because it was so cheap. Not a bad lens for 150.00, only problem is I find it a little long for my liking.

Here's what I was thinking and here's where I really need you help.  I was thinking on getting the 10-22 for UWA to wide and also getting the 17-40 for my day to day walking around. Do these two lenses overlap to much, am I better off getting the 10-22 with either the 24 usm is or the 28 1.8. I feel the primes are not that wide on the crop body. What are your thoughts and your recommendations.

I also shoot macros and will get the 60macro and for the long end for when I need it will get either the 70-200 f4 usm is or the 70-300 usm is.

Thanks for your help,
Anthony

There have been some excellent recommendations already, so I will not add any more. However what was it made you switch to a MFT camera, and then what made you return to DSLRs?

[well_dunno]

Though none of the lenses have enough DR so you might like to reconsider! 

I kid I kid!

[JPAZ]

+1 on the 10-22.

Used one for quite a while when I shot APS-C.

[awinphoto]

back in the day of my crop sensor days, i went just that route, well kinda... I used the 17-40 as my daily use lens and I had a sigma 10-20...  (at the time there wasn't the canon 10-22 and when that lens did come out, it was still more $$ than the sigma).  The sigma didn't quite have the crispness i would have liked, but when I needed it for ultrawide, it delivered time and time again.  As far as 17-40 vs 17-55 or tamrons 17-50...  I've never used tamrons lens... i've seen great test results from it, but when it came time to purchase, the nearest store that sold tamron was 2 hours each way JUST to try it out...  screw that.  I did test the 17-40 and 17-55...  To me, i personally wasn't impressed with the 17-55... it was as sharp as the 17-40 but it was plasticy, and after a week of shooting it, there just wasn't anything making WANT to buy it over the 17-40.  The 17-40 has a depressing zoom range... not nearly long enough for my taste, but for $700 at the time of purchase, i was willing to live with that.  Now, my 17-40 sits in my bag as my UWA for my 5d3 and if i would have gotten the 17-55, it would have been sold a while ago.