Fine addition to the Canon 10-22 mm lens

[Christian Neumann]

For me as a Canon user shooting with the EOS 40D (with an APS-C-sized image sensor) , the Canon EF-S 10-22mm 1:3.5-4.5 USM is the most often used lens for photographing storm structures. However, when photographing lightning, I felt that the lightning bolts often appear to small on the image. There are three way to solve this problem: (1) getting closer (not recommended!), (2) image cropping (for the cost of image resolution) and (3) using a longer lens.

I decided for the third way. Until recently, I used the Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8. This is a nice and still affordable lens, but one drawback is the gap of 6 mm to the maximum focal length of my wide angel lens (and believe it or not, but 6 mm really matter in this focal range!). The second drawback is the difficulty of manual focussing. So I decided to purchase a new lens and decided for the Canon EF 24-70mm 1:2.8L USM, reducing the gap of focal range to 2 mm. What a difference! The first difference I noted is the heavy weight and large size of this lens (I’m not talking about the difference I noticed in my wallet!). So, it’s a large and heavy lens and it isn’t cheap, too. But quality and handling are so breathtaking that it is now my most often used lens. At my opinion, this lens is the best addition the 10-22 wide angel you can currently get!

You can find a detailed review here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Bests from Berlin,
Christian


Image taken with the EF 24-70 f/2.8 (lightning over Berlin):

 

[Wes Carter]

That is a beautiful shot. And most Cannon people I know use that 24-70 f/2.8 more than any other lens in their bag. I'm a Nikon user, but if I were starting all over now I'd have a hard time deciding which way to go.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

I almost bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 Canon lens. Almost - meaning that it is still an option. Yeah; I also have the 10-22mm f/3.5 Canon. That is a work horse.

However, ever since I bought the 50mm f/1.4 Canon lens, I also haven't felt the need to purchase the 24-70mm. One must remember that any lens on these 1.6 crop factor cameras are going to effectively alter the focal range of anything you shoot. In effect - the 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera is going to yield 80mm pictures.

Not to fret. The 50mm is 1/4 the cost of the 24-70mm lens. It even out-performs it @ 50mm setting. The downside is the loss of focal length adjustability - of course. But I've never sensed the loss, nor has any situation yet made me feel the need for one. Don't get me wrong; if I would have been able to find a cherry used 24-70mm Canon before I bought the 50mm - I would have.

The Tamron is also a decent substitute for the Canon. Petty consistant - and less money. Nice find...

 

[Graham Butler]

The 24-70mm f/2.8L is by far my most used lens it my camera bag. Its versitility is unmatched. It is a semi-macro and excellent for flower photography when I dont want the bokeh from the 100mm f/2.8 macro (or don't have it with me), its sharpness is beautiful through its range, and on top of it all it just feels like it belongs on the camera. One thing that you have to watch out for is that this is one of Canon's lenses which happens to have a large number of "not right" versions shipped from the factory. When I received mine it had the sharpness of a kit lens. Canon paid for it to be shipped, re-sharpened, and sent back. I knew this buying the lens so I was not upset that it had to go back......I would be leary about buying one used (this goes for the 100-400mm f/4L as well). Another thing to mention is that this lens is STRONG. While working in the field for my thesis I fell ONTO my camera 24-70 first into the limestone. The lens appeared fine at first although it tweaked the sharpening (which degraded in the months after the impact) and I bent the threaded piece at the end of the lens. Anyways, knowing my size and the impact, $190 to fix the lens was CHEAP!!

Anyways, EXCELLENT lens.

Graham Butler

 

[Bryan Stokes]

Congratulations! The 24-70 is an excellent lens that will serve you well for many years to come.

For future consideration, I would like to point out crop-body users (Canon 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, etc.) may want to also consider the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS. The focal length is excellent for a 1.6x sensor and the extra focal length on the wide-end makes it a very versatile lens. The optics are L quality...the only thing holding it back from being an L lens is the build (it is not as sturdy or rugged as an L lens such as the 24-70). And the IS comes in handy, especially for hand-held shots in the low light so often found in storm photography.

Canon's 24-70 is an excellent lens -- I just wanted to throw out another option to consider.

Congratulations again! And by the way...awesome picture!

Bryan

 

[Mike Davis]

Lens choices for storm chasing photography

I think all lenses mentioned are excellent. I advocate both wide angle and telephoto zoom lenses. The difference in chasing can vary from a limited range field of view, such as in mountainous terrain, to an all out flat plains environment.

So, it all depends on where you chase. Most people will choose to hedge the shooting situation with 24-70mm, f2.8 glass. I also advocate the new Tiffen HT, High Transmission, Titanium Protective Filter. It is Multi-Coated with 98%+ light transmission.

I shoot both Canon and Nikon dSLR.

Mike Davis, N4FOZ
PhotoTech Digital
Instruction
Jacksonville, FL

 

[Greg Campbell]

Sounds good.

For shooting lightning, I'm real happy shooting a few old Olympus Zuiko (OM mount) lenses I've scrounged. My 28 and 50mm lenses render lightning amazingly crisply, with no flare and nearly undetectable chromatic aberration. They work on my DrebelXT/350 in aperture priority, with the partial metering pattern selected, or in full manual.

Here's a good rundown on the lenses that will work with a Canon DSLR.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

 

[Olivier Staiger]

I'd rather recommend a prime lens , Canon's 50/1.4 .

cheaper, faster, sharper, lighter.

 

[D. Hayes]

Olivier are you talking about this lens?

Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

That is my favorite lens - for more than a few reasons.
The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is v e r y sharp and v e r y fast.
It is extremely versatile too.
Price is nice - probably more bang for buck than any lens I own...

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Also, the 1.8 50mm lens that Canon offers is a ridiculous value. It's cheap and it has optical qualities that rival some of the best "L" lenses. It is, however, by no means a well-built lens in that one or two good whacks and the thing falls apart. (I've yet to have this happen to mine, though it's fairly common.) Seeing as it can be found for $100, it's a steal.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

My problem with the 50mm 1.8 is just how much that thing fringes lights at night. It's worse and wider than CS4's RAW ap wants to remove. Makes things look softer than they are. I've been wondering if the F1.4 was not as bad at this. Each time I use it at night when there are street lights/transmition tower/etc I swear never again. Just big red, blue, or green blotches around light sources.

I swear that 1.8 was a $70 lens on BH not too many years ago and now it is a $115 deal. I just replaced mine after the camera and lens fell over on the tripod...thankfully that was the lens the camera had on it at the time. Was trying to hurry and get in the car before the brand new bolts from the line of towers overhead decided it was my turn.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

My problem with the 50mm 1.8 is just how much that thing fringes lights at night. It's worse and wider than CS4's RAW ap wants to remove. Makes things look softer than they are. I've been wondering if the F1.4 was not as bad at this. Each time I use it at night when there are street lights/transmition tower/etc I swear never again. Just big red, blue, or green blotches around light sources.

I swear that 1.8 was a $70 lens on BH not too many years ago and now it is a $115 deal. I just replaced mine after the camera and lens fell over on the tripod...thankfully that was the lens the camera had on it at the time. Was trying to hurry and get in the car before the brand new bolts from the line of towers overhead decided it was my turn.

Is your new copy of the lens any better? I've never had much trouble with fringing on mine, but I don't think I've done a lot of night shooting with it. It is a lens that performs exponentially better if you stop it down a bit to 2.8 or 4.

It used to be like a $75 lens -- seems almost all of Canons prices have gone up lately. Probably has to do with the weak dollar.

 

[Olivier Staiger]

Olivier are you talking about this lens?

Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus Lens

yes this is the one.

I use almost exclusively the 10-22 wide zoom and the 50/1.4 prime. Occasionnally also a Canon 200/2.8 L , or Sigma 400/5.6 for eclipses.

if I buy any new lens it will likely be Canon's 135/2 L .

before buying a lens I recommend you read this
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html

took this shot yesterday with the 10-22 >

the original image is larger, this is a crop/reframe.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Is your new copy of the lens any better? I've never had much trouble with fringing on mine, but I don't think I've done a lot of night shooting with it. It is a lens that performs exponentially better if you stop it down a bit to 2.8 or 4.

It used to be like a $75 lens -- seems almost all of Canons prices have gone up lately. Probably has to do with the weak dollar.

No it's the same. I'm not sure I've had much fringing in normal shooting with it either, but it damn sure doesn't like lights at night. Maybe that is just something that comes with wide open fast lenses on digitial, seems something should do better.