I just brought my 40D around with 17-55 for lunch just now... I found all shots very normal only... Ya... Sharpness blah-blah-blah are there... But angle not interesting...

So here I have a thought...

Example;

Canon 350D/400D/30D/40D:
Just use 10-22 USM + 70-200 L, skip the rather popular middle range of 17-55 or 17-85

Canon 5D / 1D / 1Ds
Just use 16-35 or 17-40 then jump into 70-200 L, again skip 24-70 or 24-105

Nikon D40 / D70 / D80 / 200D / 300D
Only use 12-24 + 70-200

Nikon D3
14-24 + 70-200

I mean the pictures are always more interesting with either teler or wider... normal zoom tends to give normal result... And it is easier to choose between lenses also...

I know for event shooting is different story la... The middle zoom will be utilied for most shots... I am more focused on personal leisure shooting + travels.

So what do you think?

hahaha.. im having the same thought with my pocket right now.

10-22mm have a drawback which cannot be utilized on FF. but if get the 17-40mm f4L, 5D body is still very expensive.

maybe need to sacrifice my white lens first.

Forget about budget issue la...

Assume money no problem...

And my suggestion also can save money + save weight!

I agree that tele and wide usually tend to produce more interesting shots but I think the common zoom range is still a must.

At least for me la, else I wouldn't be considering the lens

I think it is still possible to get interesting shots using the normal/ popular zoom range. You jst need to invest more effort into it

with a FF body and 17mm , u'll short 1mm than (1.6x 10mm)

but it's wide enuff, unless u r too bloody rich to get the 16-35mm f2.8L which leave me speechless, unconcious.

normal range can be substituted with 17-85mm IS which is already good zooming range (assuming u can afford grandstand ticket during the F1. hehe)

Common zoom range is a must to me, mainly because affordable f2.8 is only available on standard zooms plus, you need standard zoom to take pictures poorly lit indoors.

Wide angle indoors can give weird distortions to people and telephoto is just too long @70mm.

I found my 17-55 almost used for.... boring group pictures

The most is making use of the IS and brighten the background at nite scene. But still for group shots...

And the 17-55 also use for boring various company events... All boring type...

i hav d same opinion as u...
even tho i'm not comparing picture quality, i found tat most of d time i'll stick to UWA for my jalan-jalan shooting...
even tho d picture came out 'distorted', but it'll make most out of our creativity...

just my RM0.02

Right... At times, you found image quality is secondary... The effect is more important than image quality...

ya lor.. bokeh is important, but style is much more important. either u go super wide or fisheye.

eh bro, why did u sell off your 10-22mm earlier?

i know a birdiegrapher in penang only shoot at 600mm and widest, 12-24

But thats because he knows what he wants to shoot. I guess its fine to skip the normal zoom range if you know what kind of subjects you want to shoot.

If you are a birdiegrapher, there is no point in going for normal zoom coz its useless to you. The 12-24 is probably for landscape all the birdie places he goes to. I am second guessing him of course

Actually I use my 50mm more than anything else. Maybe I should consider skipping the normal zoom

Hahahahaha.....

Your question make me laught... and also want to cry....

I sold it off and get a 17-40 L with the stupid assumption that the new 5D replacement is coming up... All forum members seems to be fxxking sure...

And now I am stuck without superwide...

If new 5D replacement coming in late this year, I might have to get a used 10-22 to tahan at this moment... By year end, I am sure the new 5D will come up... because it reach the 3 years cycle already. Even 1D/1Ds also only has 3 years cycle of market life.


Wow...

That's what I am talking about...

then sell of your 'bertahan' 10-22mm supercheap la.

Ma Le... Did not read my post properly...

My 10-22 gone liao... And replaced with 17-40 L that never used... kept in drying cabinet...

I am so stupid....

was refering to this.

5D + 16-35 is how much?

Im happy within 28-75 range... for indoors shoots. Here are some of my sample.

At 55mm


At 60mm

Oh... ok ok... say ma... How can I understand like that... I am not your stomach's worm...


I think used 5D around RM5k can get kao...

I dunno the price of 16-35 mark II

The 16-35 is a headache... because the focal range is a bit short... 17-40 can cover the middle range better... I think for most group shots, 17-40 should be enought makan...

And most of us I think do not need f2.8...

Second headche of 16-35 mark II is the filter thread being upgraded to 82mm... So got compatibility issue with other lenses lo... BUt if only shoot with 2 lenses, why not? And C-PL is only meant for the 16-35 after all...

---

Added on March 21, 2008, 3:35 pm
I think your pictures already near to tele end... which 70-200 can cover liao... with even better image quality.

Yeah planning to get 70-200 or something else for that range later...

ultra wide + tele only..

sure! no prob! at least for me..

arghh.. i've eaten enuff sony poison already.. plz..plz.. either kill me or kill sony users.

Ya... Make life easy...

It is like if you want wide angle or tele... Simple...

I think my approach make even more sense for full frame users as the 70-200 being shorten a lot... and the gap between super wide is just little.... example 17-40 + 70-200, there is just 30mm differences...

Huh?? i didnt mention anything on sony also... btw bro im using tamron lens...

I saw you have Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, 18-70mm (kitlens) in your signature...

I do not understand why someone want to buy lenses of the same range?

Maybe he wanted the f2.8 but too sayang dont want to sell his kit lens

for the F2.8...

---

Added on March 21, 2008, 3:53 pm
Haha,... problem is so far Sony didnt sell just body.

lol. u dont have to take it personal. i just love the colors by sony provided the IS body is to crave for.

it's even better with zeiss lenses.

So can I assume if not because of budget issue like RM3k can get 70-200 f2.8, you will sure get the 70-200 f2.8 rather than 28-75 f2.8 Tamron, right?

Or you still like the 28-75 range at f2.8?

70-200mm F4 L do serve me very well...until i forgot use my kitlens + 50mm f1.8...after got that zoom lens..i nvr touch those 2 lens at all...almost forgot them

Seriously yes like the 28-75 range at f2.8...after playing with it. Cause it provide me some flexibility. The subject that time i took that day was just about 1-1.5meter away only. And i cant go any further behind cause its a wall.

If i think go event 70-200 is a good thing

Ahmike, saw ur signature Priority WishList got Tamron 70-200 F2.8, im expecting u buy once it arrive in K.L..

so u can give me some review on it

12-24 + 70-200 = awesomeness for outings!
but if single lense setup...i'd go 24-70 of coz...
mid zoom only needed when malas want to carry 2 bodies...

Hehe ok ok... hopefully it arrives early oh. but they say its next month april only coming.

For event, 70-200 is a must... rather than good thing.


You are right...

For single lense setup, 24-70 range is a must... but if 2 lenses, I would say go wider and teler than the 24-70.

The voting results seems very exciting and balance.... I never expect that...

I'm in the middle.

I like my 24-70 L which can be used for weddings and dinner events. it's F2.8 so even better. cannot live w/o a wide end lah (even though 24 on 1.6x is not very wide but still.. when I was running around with the RM300 50mm 1.8, susah want to take group pictures!)

And I have a 55-250 which gives me the ultra tele range. So I'm happy.

Only prop is the lens-changing and of course the 55-250 which is f3.5-5.6 and it hunts in low light.

these are the 2 main lenses which I carry around nowadays.

when i travel, i prefer to use my wide and tele.

What do you mean by wide? Super wide or normal wide?

a 10-20 is not wide enough? super ultra wide la

when that happens, it clearly shows your photography style.

the 50mm prime is a common arsenal among photographers but among my lens, it's one of the least used.

i use my 18-200 a lot because it covers a huge range.

10-20 is only super wide...

anthing wider than 14mm effective, then we call it ultra wide!

Something like Sickma 12-24 for FF!

even for 350D, i think 17-40+70-200+100-400 cukup makan

70-200 + 12-24 + 1 prime lens 50mm/85mm. my wishlist setup.

my wish list previously nearly settled already.
(24-70 L + 55-250 IS) only missing 10-22/12-24

Then "TheRich" (a.k.a TheVOIP) poison me with thoughts of 5D!!

BAH!!! BAH!!

forget about the 10-22mm haha....5D will done the job~~ ~

I am not rich la... @#$!@#$!@#$%^$......


Cannot buy 5D la... Anytime got replacement liao... at least I think....

where can? 24mm not wide as 10mm lah..

2nd hand 5D in m'sia = RM5-6K
New one in USA = USD2.1K

---

Added on March 21, 2008, 6:35 pm

If you not rich then You u must be like most of us. Like to Eat maggi Mee.. keke..

Yeah.. I read too (you poison!!), 5D II, but will be expensive lah.. USD3K above I reckon.

must wait sky to rain money.

well, im expecting u buy the new replacement DSLR..when in arrive in malaysia...counting on u now voip~~

oh my.. if sigma 10-20mm can go on FF.. that'll be like

eh?? for FF body, what is the widest that can go ah? FF cannot go 10mm one ah?