I have 10K to spend on camera gear...

[Terence]

watever you do, dont touch the 16-35 L. the 17-40 is much better.

Actually I thought that way until I actually tried out the 16-35L myself. I had a 17-40, which I think is a superb lens but I needed the extra stop. It's a lot more to pay for the extra stop but I think the results are well worth it.

Why don't you like it?

 

[Terence]

Wah...you never mention EF 400/4 DO IS before?

I did advertise it a month or so ago. It's a lot of money in 1 glass so I'm wondering if I should hold on to it. Currently the least used lens in my collection.

 

[zod]

why do u say that? the 16-35 has 2 extra stops. Admittedly from reviews the 17-40 is sharper at f4 at 17mm, but depending on the requirements the 16-35 may be a good thing for the extra 2 stops at least.

it's only 1 extra stop, not 2

 

[Clown]

Actually I thought that way until I actually tried out the 16-35L myself. I had a 17-40, which I think is a superb lens but I needed the extra stop. It's a lot more to pay for the extra stop but I think the results are well worth it.

Why don't you like it?

chromatic abberations galore.

 

[Rich Silfver]

Get a Hasselblad 500c/m with an 80mm Zeiss lens and a 120 back.
You can find that kit for about 900-1,000 USD.

Take slides, project them and awe your friends.

 

[Terence]

chromatic abberations galore.

I think most, if not all super wide angle lenses do have some level of CA. It's a fact of life. Even your 17-40 is not immune to that.

 

[kayaro888]

Hi

U can approach Terrance for 1 stop shopping.

hehehe, the thread owner need more than $20k to shop for all the lenes + body. :sweat:

 

[2100]

I think most, if not all super wide angle lenses do have some level of CA. It's a fact of life. Even your 17-40 is not immune to that.

This is one area that i am particularly impressed with the sigma 12-24. Very minimal CA even at the corners wide open at 12mm ( ). No joke. But sharpness is not too good wide open, though still can get excellent quality for 4R. They had a comparison A/B pic with the sigma and canon 10-22 and the sigma is much better. Sigma vs Nikkor, Sigma is better too in CA.

 

[EosDslr]

After reading through the discussion threads.

I have made up my mind on the purchase. :think:

To get the 20D body together with the 17-40 f4.0 and 70-200 f.2.8 IS.

Save the rest of the money for travel. (still left 3K)



Once again, thanks everyone for the advice!

 

[zod]

after that, you should buy an eye-one to calibrate your monitor
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=98536

 

[Clown]

I think most, if not all super wide angle lenses do have some level of CA. It's a fact of life. Even your 17-40 is not immune to that.

i nikon user.. but i see too many super CA pics from the 16-35 cuz of my work until i scared liao.
imagine u take photo of a tree against the sky and say if 1 branch is 12 pixels wide, 3 pixels on one side will be cyan and 3 pixels on the other side will be magenta, only got 6 pixels of actual brown color on the branch. can PS until cry sia..

yea.. sigma did it again. exceptionally good lenses to balance the crap they sometimes come up with. =)

 

[Lensman]

with digital, we can link up our borrowed-from-office laptop and LCD projector, and do the same.

furthermore, one can show a lot more than the slides do (imaging carrying trays and trays to slides to showcase 1 trip... :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

Take slides, project them and awe your friends.

 

[Lensman]

Welcome to the Canon DSLR family.... :cheers:

dun forget to update yourself at the Canon forum hor....

After reading through the discussion threads.

I have made up my mind on the purchase. :think:

To get the 20D body together with the 17-40 f4.0 and 70-200 f.2.8 IS.

Save the rest of the money for travel. (still left 3K)



Once again, thanks everyone for the advice!

 

[frisky]

Thanks for all inputs. I'm just an amateur hobbyist.
My profession is IT networking.
Taking pictures have been my passion.
Currently I have a 10D and the 28-135 IS lens.

So it's better to upgrade to 20D and some L lens and save the money for travelling expenses (sounds great!)

If you have 10K to spend, you don't really need to count in your current investment and stick with Canon. Decide what you really need for your requirement and go with it.

 

[xl1]

i nikon user.. but i see too many super CA pics from the 16-35 cuz of my work until i scared liao.
imagine u take photo of a tree against the sky and say if 1 branch is 12 pixels wide, 3 pixels on one side will be cyan and 3 pixels on the other side will be magenta, only got 6 pixels of actual brown color on the branch. can PS until cry sia..

yea.. sigma did it again. exceptionally good lenses to balance the crap they sometimes come up with. =)

funny.... just step back and u get the bigger picture....don't just believe whatever you see, may be u need to try first.

 

[2100]

funny.... just step back and u get the bigger picture....don't just believe whatever you see, may be u need to try first.

He has more than enough samples to believe it. Think he probably has DIed thousands of wedding pics taken with the 16-35. :bsmilie:

 

[davsmiths]

stick to ur 10D...if u really WANT. move to the 20D. grab some lenses... go to some place with nice sceneries... i prefer asia... thn buy a 15' powerbook loaded with ram for post picture editing! there u go!

 

[dundee]

Please advise.

1) Get a 20D and some L lenses.
2) Get 1D MK II and 1 L Lens.

Which is the better option?

Appreciate all fellow clubsnappers opinion.

Hmm.... y u want MK2?? so heavy.... + u dun have lenses to match :nono:

ok for myself i will get:

1) 20D + 10D backup
2) 35mm 1.4L
3) 15mm/2.8 FE
4) 85mm/1.2
5) 135/2
6) 200/ 2.8


in that order. Max pic quality. :bsmilie:

 

[nickmak]

Hmm.... y u want MK2?? so heavy.... + u dun have lenses to match :nono:

ok for myself i will get:

1) 20D + 10D backup
2) 35mm 1.4L
3) 15mm/2.8 FE
4) 85mm/1.2
5) 135/2
6) 200/ 2.8


in that order. Max pic quality. :bsmilie:

Not max pic quality yet... For the best, use large format! :bsmilie:

Just kidding...