Hi hi Sifu around ... Not sure if I should create a new topic here or not but I would need some advise on lens option.

I currently have a 7D with couple of lenses to play around and I now in the middle of getting a new lens mood. I currently have a 17-55mm F2.8 , 28mm F1.8 , 50mm F1.8 and 85mm F1.8.

Now I'm in a dilemma of either to let go the 28mm to fund the 10-22mm UWA lens or to have both 17-55mm and 28mm to let go to make way for 16-35 F2.8L.

Not sure which option is better and would like to hear what Sifu here can advise ...

10-22mm is UWA for crop frame and 16-35 L is UWA for FF. Since you are using 7D i would suggest 10-22. If you got budget, it's no harm getting 16-35

10-22 UWA, you get a whole new angle as it said - Ultra Wide ( why not consider Sigma 8-16? wider)
16-35 F2.8L will not necessary make your photo any better but will lead you to full frame path

dunno how i should start this, but this is just my small advice
form your collection, i can see that you have invested a lot in your gear and few are the top of the line especially the 17-55 and 85mm, and you planning to get a wider angle lens

IMO, 16-35mm on 7D is wasted as 17-55 is far more practical and it has the L lens quality just without the Red ring, so dun waste your money for the 16-35mm if you planning to use it on APS-C..quite no point to gain the L and extra 1mm and paying another few thousand grand

besides, you suggested the 10-22mm lens, which is superb for landscape, i had tried before for months and it do give me gooding picture and perspective, but i am not a wide angle freak, so 10-22 does not suite me very well...quite a hard to frame picture unless you shooting landscape or getting very close to the subject and give a big head look, but i vote for this lens over the 16-35mm la

but it all depend on you, and see what is your shooting habit, there must be a reason why you grab the 28mm and 85mm, if for me i will take the 28mm for street photography and 85mm for dedicated portraiture work, plus the f1.8 is a big plus to me...in my case, i will keep these two lens, just trying to give some suggestion and solve your problem without breaking the bank
Cheers!

This post has been edited by lamjunrong: Aug 11 2013, 12:40 PM

But the Siggy 8-16 is a fisheye lens ... Plus the focus is a bit on the slow side ... 10-22mm seems like a better option

Thanks thanks for your advise which your point really hit into me and that's the reason why I'm stuck in dilemma ... The 28mm I quite love it and used it a lot but is just that the 28mm already being cover by the 17-55mm with only the aperture different. Huh huh ....how to decide !

Siggy 8-16 is not a fisheye lens, is a UWA lens with visible distortion when come to 8mm end; focusing is slow when come to UWA lens, but siggy one is bit slower, and narrower aperture

which lens you bought first? 17-55 or the 28mm? when purchasing the next lens, try not to overlap the zoom range, for example you have the 18-55mm kit lens and then you go and buy a 17-55mm which is dunno how many times the pricing is...then end up you either leave a lens in the corner or would not bother to pick up both of the lens, as you just stick to the prime lens...

for me size and factor is one thing, so i prefer prime, this said by many photog, 'zooming prime lens using my foot'....so i rather leave the 17-55 at home, as its heavy...one more thing is we tend to buy lens to cover every angle that is possible, ranging from 8mm to 300mm or more, imagine how many lens are there, unless you are seriously no problem on budget and you are working or having a studio...

in the end, there are many advantage of prime lens over zoom lens such as aperture, sharpness, smaller size, better color and less distortion; but there is only one advantage of zoom lens over prime lens...it zooms...

so pick your weapon

This post has been edited by lamjunrong: Aug 11 2013, 04:44 PM

Let go the 28mm and get the 10-22. F1.8 and F2.8 not much diff

This post has been edited by qy1121: Aug 11 2013, 03:26 PM

+

There is a lot of difference bro... there's 1 and 1/3 stops more light coming in from the f1.8 compared to the f2.8 if i am not wrong.

that said, I have used the 16-35L on crop sensor before, doesn't really give me the wideness I am looking for, yes, it is still wide on a crop sensor, but only 25.6mm (narrower than what you can get with 24-105 on FF). so if you are looking for true wide angle, you should get the 10-22mm.

yes it's more light coming in. since he got the 17-55 why not letting go the 28m

maybe u sud tell us why u r unsatisfied with ur current lens line up...

or if u r exploring a new field in photography n wan advise on suitable lenses...

why not str8 go for the canon zoom trinity? sud cover all ur bases
16-35 f2.8 II
24-70 f2.8 II
70-200 f2.8 II

well... if he can afford that, i am sure there's no need for such topic

That would be not possible at the moment looooo ... Too much for a hobbyist at the moment ...

Actually it's depends on what you want to shoot

precisely... an UWA, especially a f2.8 one, is to enable to person to get up close while shooting handheld, and also get bokeh..

for landscapes, u will usually carry a tripod and wants a deep DOF, a fast aperture is not required...

plus if u r going to trek along, u want something light...

for crop i think a prime with a FOV of around 20mm is just nice for landscapes

Get the 10-22mm. Wider on crop sensor.

But if you plan to go full frame soon, it would be better to get the 16-35 L lens. I see most of your lens except the 17-55 can use on FF.

thank you for explaining hope he can decide

that's true...
its like u're using 11-16 on FF body...

dont waste money for 16-35 on crop body