7D + 10-22mm or 5D III + 16-35mm L II?

[Harley]

The TS-E lens is a pain to use on a crop body - the popup flash gets in the way. Canon provides a smaller knob you use in that case, but it's still a really tight fit and the little knob is hard to turn.  Great lens on FF, though!

I have a 7D and am about to get set up with a tilt-shift lens.  I have opted to buy an old FD 35mm f/2.8 TS lens and will convert it with the Ed Mika TS adapter.  This is a much less expensive option than a current TS-E lens, it's much smaller, and better built.  The adapter doesn't have any optics, so you aren't reducing the speed of the lens.  It also maintains all the functionality of the TS lens so it can be rotated freely.  The adapter has an AF confirmation chip so it will communicate with the body and provide EXIF metadata. 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EdMika-Tilt-Shift-TS-35mm-2-8-FD-EOS-brass-adapter-conversion-kit-/170742432321?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_2&hash=item27c10ac241

[friedmud]

@Jrista 

Yes, Samyang is also branded as Rokinon and Bower among others though in the US market Rokinon is the easiest to find. I love the sharpness across the field and fast at f/2.8. Just wish my eyes were better for the manual focus

For manual focus for tripod shots of static objects I _always_ drop into live view mode, zoom all the way in on whatever I want to focus on (which mightH have come from a quick hyperfocal calculation) and then manually focus using the screen.  I then hop out of live view and proceed like normal.  Beautifully simple and you're guaranteed to have the focus you want (you're actually focusing on the _sensor_ itself instead l your eye)

[RayS2121]

EF-S 10-22 appears to be a capable lens and I have heard no major gripes from owners. If the goal is an inevitable move to FF then the main question here is:  do you invest in any new glass, especially relatively expensive ones, that will only work on the cropped sensor?

EF-s lenses may well go the way FD lenses went as FF sensors become more common and with more MP (in time). I know some continue to use them (FD), hell I have my A1 still . Not an immediate danger for sure in the Canon line, but I don’t’ want to set off a war on the ultimate future of cropped sensors here.

I would always recommend that one invests in lenses that will have longevity and scope beyond one's current body. 

As I see it, the cropped sensor owner has advantages on the telephoto side with more reach for same Focal length and unfortunately a blunted wide angle limit... which is what you face. Most wide you can find in a rectilinear lens may be in the range of ~14mm which gives you about 22mm for the cropped body. about 4mm over the 16mm on 16-35II in the FF.

That said, most my cropped body friends with kit lenses are taken aback by how strikingly wide 24mm really is on a FF. The widest some have ever seen is 18mm with the kit lens which is about ~29mm in FF terms. Hence my earlier suggestion that a cheaper 14mm or an actual Canon 14mm (if budget allows) may tide you over till you hit the FF purchase, give you a modicum of wide angle thrills, and still allow you to keep the glass moving forward.

If you cannot live without the last 4mm to hit that 16mm on FF, then I am afraid you have to buy something like 10-22 EF-S.

That brings us to the age old question:“Do you want it now? Or do you want it good!”

[V8Beast]

I recently purchased a 7D, which I'm quite happy with so far. I do a lot of nature work, landscapes when I have the time to get out and find them, wildlife and birds most of the time, with a variety of other macro, still life, and even portrait work at times. I've been holding out for a 5D III, however it seems that its release is still quite some way off into the future. I also currently own the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II lens, which I've used with my 450D for a while, however it does limit me on the wide end...essentially capturing an FoV similar to that of the 24-70 on FF.

My question is, should I grab the EF-S 10-22mm lens for the 7D, and use that for landscapes? I've heard that lens is optically really great, but I've also heard it has a fair amount of distortion at the wide end. Should I save my money bank it for the 5D III and use my 16-35mm for that kind of work?

I used both the 10-22 and 16-35 on a 10D and 20D for many years before upgrading to FF bodies. Since then, I've used the 16-35 and 17-40 on both the 7D and 5D.

IMHO, the 10-22 is an outstanding lens. Optically, it's pretty darn close to the L-series lenses. Distortion wise, from my experience the 16-35, both the MKI and MKII, is the worst of the bunch on the wide end. Dollar per dollar, I think the 17-40 offers the best bang-for-the-buck performance in terms of optics and build quality. I can't, in good conscience, recommended to anyone that spending twice as much for a 16-35 is worth it.

If you stick with a crop body, IMHO, you'll be giving up very little in image quality with a 10-22 vs. a 16-35 or 17-40.

[zaza]

I've been thinking along similar lines; own a 7D, want to go wide, will probably be looking seriously at the 5D3 when it eventually surfaces.

 My conclusion is that I'm probably not going to get rid of my 7D for a long time. It's really a great camera. How long until I actually get my hands on a 5D3? Over a year I reckon. Even then, I'll have them in parallel. By the time I'm looking at getting a full-on FF wide angle, I think it'll be a couple of years.
 As with all these things, therefore, it's about how quickly you can build up cash and what you want to spend it on. It won't take me 2 years of saving to afford either a 10-22mm EFS lens or the 14mm prime, so I reckon a couple of years of good use is worth the few hundred it costs for a 10-22. If the 7D does hit ebay, selling it with a great wide-angle is no bad thing.

[dtaylor]

But the OP was talking about waiting for the 5d3, and got a 7d whilst waiting when he could have gotten the 5d2 was my point.

jrista said his choice was based on wildlife shooting and on cost.

To say the 5d2 and 7d is comparable at all is just wrong, plain and simple.

Looks like I skewered a sacred cow 

I use both FF and 1,3 crop and that beautiful smooth bokeh and transitions of the FF is a big difference to the 1,3.

A fast prime on an APS-C camera can easily diffuse a background. For portraits the difference between something like an 85mm prime on crop and on FF is the difference between one eye in focus and one eyelash. I don't typically want one eyelash in focus, and usually stop down to f/2 or f/2.8 even with a 50mm on crop to make sure I get both eyes and most of the face in focus.

There are situations where the more shallow DoF of FF can be useful, but the difference is not nearly as dramatic as it is made out to be. At the end of the day we obsess too much about small differences. Shuffle up some prints shot with a wide open prime on both. See if anyone notices a difference and glows about one or the other without you even telling them the prints were made with two different cameras. They certainly would see a difference between those prints and prints made from, say, a P&S with the background in sharp focus. But probably not between the DSLR prints.

I would get FF just to have a 17-equiv TS lens.

I believe I said, before your post, that those with T/S lenses are best served by FF bodies.

No need to compare them,

I compared them because of the comments to jrista that he should sell the 7D and buy a 5D2+16-35 now because "a 7D isn't for landscapes." Contrary to the meme, landscape photography is an area where there is little to no difference between the sensors. If you've got a 7D, save the money and wait for a 5D3.

Now if jrista had posted that his 85 f/1.2L just wasn't giving him shallow enough DoF on his 7D, I would have told him to get a 5D2. I don't think I've ever heard someone make that complaint however.

[jrista]

Keep in mind, those offering advice about the 10-22 vs. the 16-35...I ALREADY OWN the 16-35mm L II. It was actually the second lens I purchased after getting my first DSRL. I know its a superb lens, and wouldn't give it up for anything.

My question is whether its worth it to spend the money (which, relatively speaking, is a lot) on a 10-22, or whether its just not worth it and it doesn't buy me enough OVER the 16-35mm I already have. I thought the 10-22 went for around $750, but it seems to have climbed in price, and I see it selling for around $840 these days. My real question given that price is:

Will it buy me enough OVER AND BEYOND my current EF 16-36mm f/2.8 L II lens?

I've looked into some primes, but the way I photograph landscapes (there have been plenty of times I've waded out into a lake a ways, dropped my tripod right there, and taken some shots!), a zoom is more useful (unless its a TS lens, in which case I'll deal with moving my tripod around.)

[neuroanatomist]

My question is whether its worth it to spend the money (which, relatively speaking, is a lot) on a 10-22, or whether its just not worth it and it doesn't buy me enough OVER the 16-35mm I already have. I thought the 10-22 went for around $750, but it seems to have climbed in price, and I see it selling for around $840 these days. My real question given that price is:

Will it buy me enough OVER AND BEYOND my current EF 16-36mm f/2.8 L II lens?

Assuming you're talking about using both on an APS-C body, the 10-22mm will buy you a 34% wider (diagonal) angle of view.  That's pretty significant, from my perspective. 

[AprilForever]

Keep the 7D and get a Tokina 11-16. Unless you wish to drop a lot on lenses, this will be a much cheaper route...

[jrista]

Keep the 7D and get a Tokina 11-16. Unless you wish to drop a lot on lenses, this will be a much cheaper route...

Hmm, thats an intriguing idea, as it would match up with the 16-35mm on the long end nicely. How good are Tokina lenses? I've only owned Canon, and have used a Sigma and Tamron (didn't like the tamron, the sigma was ok.)

[MartinvH]

Considering money is a factor as you explained.

I would buy the EF-S 10-22mm second hand which is a great lens in my user opinion.
You can enjoy it right now with your crop and start shooting on the wide end.

In time when you want to buy the 5D MKIII you can always sell the EF-S 10-22mm (for about the same price you bought it second hand )in order to fund your camera if you need to.

Remember that the starting price of the 5D MkIII might be very high just like the 5D MKII took some months to lower in price.
Owning the EF-S 10-22mm means no need to hurry yourself into a 5DMKIII

[MarkoE]

Hello from Slovenia!

What about Sigma 8-16??  I am considering Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22 on 450d. I will eventually go on FF, but that may take some time, so I must buy some wide angle lens as soon as possible   I have seen reviews that claim Sigma is even better than Canon, but it is disturbing not having possibility to attach filters...

[ferdi]

Will it buy me enough OVER AND BEYOND my current EF 16-36mm f/2.8 L II lens?

The EF-S 15-85 was not wide enough for me, so if you feel the same about your 16-35 then you should definately try an ultra-wide angle lens. The Canon 10-22 is a solid one, but any UWA lens that at least covers the 11-15mm range could be working for you. Note that Canon EF-S lenses as well as the Tokina, Tamron and Sigma UWA's are not weather sealed, so if you're shooting in a lake you might want to consider using a rainsleeve.

What about Sigma 8-16??  I am considering Sigma 8-16 or Canon 10-22 on 450d.

These two seem to be very close. I'd say the Canon one wins because you can put a filter on it (never had a problem with non-slim ones myself) and is therefore also easier to clean, it has a bit less vignette and distortion, and being 2/3 stop faster on the wide end comes in useful too.
The Sigma has less CA, and although the zoom range is smaller the extra 2mm on the wide end really count. It seems AF works accurately too.

[jrista]

Thanks for all the help, everyone! I've weighed the options, and decided to skip any lens right now. It looks like all the good options are anywhere from $750-$850. I have an Apple 30" LCD CinemaDisplay that is starting to die on me...its increasingly exhibiting various darker patterns on the screen in certain places that nothing seems to fix. For the price of a lens, I can replace this with the new Apple 27" LED CinemaDisplay which is $999. I think I'll get a hell of a lot more use out of the screen than the lens over the next year, as lately most of what I shoot is birds and wildlife (hence the purchase of a 7D).

I intend to keep the Tokina 11-16 in mind though (and possibly the Sigma 8-16), in case I ever do want to get the lens in the future...looks like a really nice lens that will compliment my current set perfectly.

[danski0224]

Keep the 7D and get a Tokina 11-16. Unless you wish to drop a lot on lenses, this will be a much cheaper route...

X2

This is a great lens, and much different than the 16-35.

You will need more than 1 flash unit with the Tokina 11-16 and using the popup flash results in lens shadow.

I have both. You need the 11-16 for wide shots on the 7D.