AHH!!! why so much $$$???

[deadwithoutyou]

ok. so. pops asked me what i wanted for christmas, so i thought to myself, "well...i dont have a wide angle lense" so i said to him. i think a lens with a range from about 10mm and on would be nice. so what do i get this morning? a efs 10-22mm f/3.5 lens. which made me very very happy.

so i this morning when i opened it i saw a little blemish on the glass. and so i say, well if im gonna have a two hundred something dollar lens i dont want any blemishes...and i heard my dad choak and say, "umm its a little more than 200 bucks."

so i go on ritzcamera.com today...$799!!!!!!! what the hell?!?!?!?! i didnt know the lens would cost 800 bucks!!!

so this is my question. i dont have a 70-200 lens. well i have a 70-300 efs lens. but i dont really like the construction of it. should i keep the 800 dollar 10-22 lens? or go with a EF f/4 L lens?

why is this 10-22mm so damnn expensive?

[Verdugo]

Good glass is expensive because of the glass and the elements that are used. You get what you pay for in terms of sharpness, contrast, and build quality. How bad is the blemish on there? Does it affect your pictures? If it doesn't, I'd just keep it...it's a very good wide range. You do realize that the 70-200 is going to cost as much, if not more, than your 10-22 right? I know the 70-200 f/2.8 is about $1700 for either the Canon or Nikon equivalent.

[deadwithoutyou]

well...the blemish isnt too bad. and the EF L lens i saw was $775 but it was f/4 not f/2.8 so thats probably why it was so cheap.

the lens is 800 bucks though, if im going to buy a brand new lens from a respected retailer, i want perfection. now if i was buying it off ebay and getting a reduced price then i wouldnt mind a little spot.

thanks for the reply though armin.

[Verdugo]

Well, you should be able to exchange it for a perfect one...most reputable camera retailers will have no problem with that. Just explain the blemish and you'll be golden

Oh and the 70-200 f/4 is a damn good lens too, from what I've been told. It obviously won't be as fast as the f/2.8, but it's still tack sharp.

[deadwithoutyou]

im just wondering if the 70-200 ef L is worth trading in my 70-300 esf. dont know if the image quality is THAT much different.

[Verdugo]

im just wondering if the 70-200 ef L is worth trading in my 70-300 esf. dont know if the image quality is THAT much different.

I think you'll be very surprised how much of a difference L glass makes You could always try renting one just to try it out (if a lens rental place is around you)

[chanwahyaoh]

im just wondering if the 70-200 ef L is worth trading in my 70-300 esf. dont know if the image quality is THAT much different.

The quality of the L glass is MUCH much better than the 70-300.

And Armin's right. If the dealer is worth anything, they will let you trade in your defective lens in. If not, then you should always be able to send it back to Canon under warranty.

I have the EF-S 10-22mm lens, and love it. Personally I shoot wide more than I do telephoto. You have to consider what you shoot more to decide if you want the 10-22 or if you want to trade in for the 70-200.

Keep in mind though that the 10-22 will only work on the Canon 20D and Digital Rebel XT. If you ever decide to buy a full-frame camera body...you'll have to ditch that lens too.

[c00lbeans]

dont get the 70-200f4, if your going to buy glass like that save up and get the 2.8(basically the best lens ever made). Your going to want that extra stop plus 3 stops of image stabilization sooooo bad so why waist time with the F4 when the 2.8 will bring you so much more plearues and you wont need to replace or buy in thing in that range for a LONG time, as long as you don't drop it. I'm buying mine in about a week

personally i would ditch the 10-22 for a 16-35 2.8 or 70-200IS

[deadwithoutyou]

dont get the 70-200f4, if your going to buy glass like that save up and get the 2.8(basically the best lens ever made). Your going to want that extra stop plus 3 stops of image stabilization sooooo bad so why waist time with the F4 when the 2.8 will bring you so much more plearues and you wont need to replace or buy in thing in that range for a LONG time, as long as you don't drop it. I'm buying mine in about a week

personally i would ditch the 10-22 for a 16-35 2.8 or 70-200IS

i hear you on the 2.8...im sure its way worth the extra 4-5 hundred dollars. although i dont know if im going to ditch the 10-22...ive just started photography (1 year) and i already have an efs 18-55 f/3.5...yes i know the 16-35 f/2.8 is a waaaaayyyyy better lens. but i would rather have a complete set of lenses that cover all ranges, rather than overlap lens'...for now at least.


-adam

[c00lbeans]

18-55 sucks and its 3.5-5.6
dosnt worry about over lapping. the 2 most important lenses to have are really the 16-35 and 70-200. ANY photojournalist can live very happily with thos 2 lenses alone. the 18-55 is only good for snap shots and maybe some daytime stuff. 10-22 is effing super wide and i doubt you will ever need that unless your shooting fat people from 2 ft away

[chanwahyaoh]

I do have to say that if you shoot indoor architecture at all, the 10-22 is a good lens to have.

here is a comparison between lenses.

In the end, it all really depends on your needs and what you like to shoot.

[TurbeauxREX]

Interesting discussion on the Canon 70-200 L series lenses. While I agree with c00lbeans regarding the 2.8/L IS version being the most capable, compared to its siblings; the 2.8/L and 4/L, it is MUCH heavier and more expensive.

The 2.8/L IS runs $1700 on-line
The 2.8/L runs ~$1200 on-line
The 4/L runs ~$600 on-line
(Pricegrabber.com prices) Over the counter, add $200 -$300 to each lens.

The image quality is almost indiscernible among the three when shot under the same conditions. In other words, take away the extreme low end of the aperture range, shooting at say f/8 – 11, whatever, and you will be hard pressed to pick out which lens shot which image.

So now, it comes down to your potential usage. Do you shoot indoor sports (basketball, volleyball, etc)? Or do you shoot mostly outdoors during the day? What body are you shooting? A light-weight digi-Rebel, 10D / 20D, 1 series? The way the lens weight matches the camera weight can make all the difference in the world of how the package feels in your hands and potentially affects your shooting. Not to mention your arm from hefting the thing around on an all-day shoot at the track or stadium.

We have both the 2.8/L IS and the f4/L and we shoot 1dMkII bodies. The 2.8/L IS feels very well balanced on the 1D MkII bodies, while the lighter f4/L feels, well, odd. Both make beautiful images, but, for me, the f4 lens is too light on our bodies. Fortunately, I only paid $500 for it, used - in excellent condition.

Let your needs drive your decision, as chanwahyaoh already stated. But, one thing I can tell you from my own personal experience, when buying equipment, pro-grade lenses (L-series) will hold their value for a lot longer than the consumer-grade lenses or camera bodies, for that matter. Buying pro lenses is always a good investment; however, can be wasted money unless you are going to actually use them. While I’m a big supporter of using OEM matched components, some aftermarket lenses very closely match the OEM’s. My Tamron 28 – 75 2.8 images are just as sharp as my Canon 28 – 135 IS lens. The Tamron is faster, but the Canon offers IS, so it’s pretty much a wash, but, the Canon is ~$200 more.

All of this discussion aside, never forget, the equipment only enables you to make the images; they are tools. In the right hands a P&S will outshine thousands of dollars of equipment used by the wrong person. Photography is largely about vision; one’s perception and ability to capture a moment in time. We tend to get too hung-up on having the latest & greatest, when it’s your eye & mind..and timing, that make the image. Just go shoot.

Oh, and why are these lenses soooo expensive? Largely because the L-series lenses and 1-series bodies are designed for working professional photographers that make money from their craft and have to rely on equipment that can take a beating and keep performing as designed. Also, lots of Photojournalists have their equipment provided to them by their employer. Me, I’m just a weekend warrior who happens to like the heftier pro camera bodies and have been fortunate enough to assemble some decent equipment. I explain it to my friends as this is my bass boat, my RV, whatever it is that they spend their hard-earned cash on.

Peace & Happy New Year!

Curtis