Lens lineup/change-up

[timberghost72]

I have been thinking about doing a lens change-up due to my photography style and interests and was hoping to get some first hand knowledge and experiences and also pro's and con's that I may have missed already during my research. I have read through Shawn's awesome lens list many times which has steered my thought process and reduced my learning curve a bunch.  My main interest is landscape, architecture, nature, city scapes, and I am starting to do some series type photo's in various themes and studio. I also like wildlife but for this thread we'll keep it at those. Little to no sports. So my current lineup is a:
Canon 60D
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS
EF 70-200L f/4 IS.

What I was thinking is to change out the EF-S 17-55 and purchase the Canon EF-S 10-22 f/3.5 along with the EF 24-105L f/4. I know there is a little over lap with the 70-200.

So I guess my question is, is the IQ of the 10-22 a good trade off from the 17-55 (using tripod)? I have no problems with the 17-55 and love it for low light but need the wider angle and can't afford both lenses. Also, I think the 24-105L would be a good or better walk around lens then the 17-55. I shoot mostly RAW but jpeg seem to come better so I guess I need to work on my editing more 
 
I have been thinking about upgrading the body but that won't be for a few more years. Either to FF or the 70D Mk II. Seems there are some that don't like the 70D classic but it is on the radar too. I was looking at the 6D FF but like the features of the 70D Mk II even though is a crop body. One important feature I do want is a 100% view finder.

I am on a real tight budget so thoughts/opinions or anything I should think about?

Thanks

Tony

[huntnphool]

 Don't think you can go wrong with those lenses and that plan if you are not needing the speed of the 17-55.

 First two pics are with a 10-22, the second two are with a 17-55, not a whole lot of width difference but there is a bit.

[timberghost72]

Yeah that is the one sticking point, being the speed of the 17-55. I do like that lens alot.

[Bean Counter]

Tony,

THe 10-22mm is a great lens. It has come down in price quite a bit. I would be patient and wait to find it used. You should be able to snag one for $450-500 tops if you're patient.

The 24-105 F/4L is loved by MANY full frame shooters. I personally have turned my nose to it. Most who love it praise it's extremely versatile zoom range. I have a 24-70 which is much sharper. As a general rule, primes are sharpest, super zooms are super soft, and the best compromise in a zoom is one that sticks to within a 3x zoom range. Ex the 70-200mm.... 200mm < 70mm x3. I would pass on both the 24-70 and the 24-105. Don't be seduced by the red ring. Here's why:

It's often said that lenses are more important than your camera body and in many respects that's quite true. Having the appropriate focal length, image stabilization, and a wide aperture when appropriate are all fictions of the lens (unless your camera features in body image stabilization). Your sensor/film can't capture what your lens isn't focusing. All that said, as far as rote image quality a larger format will best glass and even megapixels. That for me is why I moved up to full frame. I can shoot at ISO 12,800 - 16,000 with a cheap lens ($100-300) and it cleans up to an acceptable/good quality that I would never get on a crop camera and even the best lenses. Full frame also boasts significantly better dynamic range and tonal gradation. Peter Lik, who recently sold a photo he shot in Arizona for a whopping $6.5 million, shoots his landscapes with a medium format digital camera for a reason.
edit: also, a full frame at f/4 is about as wide as a crop sensor camera at f/2.8. I think f/4 as a min aperture is too narrow for a crop camera.

I would skip the L lenses for now. Sell your 17-55, get the 10-22, the Plastic Fantastic for its lovely f:1.8, and maybe a used kit lens 18-55 if you might miss the range between the 10-22 and the 70-200.  Also if you get the new Yongnuo f/1.8 in lieu of the Canon please post up a review. I'm curious and I'm guessing others would like to hear about it as well.

[timberghost72]

The main reason for my OP is mostly to get a wider lens option with good IQ while also keeping a walk around type lens too and keeping within budget. The 17-55 is great for that but there is too much overlap without a big gain at the wide end by having that with the 10-22. With the 24-105 I would get that. It would be nice to afford all of these though. I would really hate to get rid of my 17-55 which is also why I posted this to get opinions on my thoughts. I never shoot over 800 ISO so that is not an issue. I always use a tripod when shooting landscapes too unless I feel lazy. That and IS is not much of an issue either when using a tripod. It is turned off. I don't think I could sell my 17-55 and replace it with a kit lens  . I suppose I could rent or borrow a 10-22 to see if I will even like it and if it will fit my needs. Same with the 24-105.

This is why I hate to sell off the 17-55 taken just about dark on New Years Day 1/15th sec at 28mm f/5.6 ISO 400. A little blurry at the far end of the bridge but it was pretty dark. It really picked up the glow on the horizon.

[Smossy]

I wish I know what you guys were talking about being an aspiring amateur hobby photographer. I have the Nikon D3300 with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II and the Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR

What are the number's on the end meaning? Im with what timberghost is saying, Trying to find something more for landscape/nature. I find myself using my 18-55mm more than anything.

[Bean Counter]

Smoss,
If you're a Costco member, go buy "Getting Started in Digital Photography." I've mentioned it on here a few times before. It was in stock, out, now it's back again. It will run you about $10-12. It's a magazine but has very little junk and tons of good info. If you're not a Costco member, hook up with someone on here and tag along for their next trip. I'm 1,500 miles away so I'm out 

The number after the f/____ is the lens' minimum aperture. A lower number means a wider aperture, which yields shallow depth of field. That's how you get nice blurry backgrounds ("bokeh") for portraits. Usually for landscapes you want a high f/stop for a narrow aperture, which yields a large depth of field. So everything is in focus. "F/8 and be there" is an old saying.

Lenses with a lower aperture are usually more expensive. The reason you see f/3.5-5.6 on some lenses is that when you're zoomed out the minimum aperture changes to 5.6. However when you're at the narrow end of the range you can open it up To f/3.5. This is a hallmark of a cheap lens.

Lenses with a low f stop number are usually referred to as "fast lenses." This can be confusing because aperture is independent of shutter speed, sort of. Te moniker exists because in addition to a more shallow depth of ffield, a low f/stop number also let's in tons more light, so the photographer can shoot with a much faster shutter speed.

For instance, if I shoot my 24-70mm f/4L IS at 35mm, the widest I can set the aperture is f/4. Let's say it's getting dark and the kids are running around. I want to shoot a fast shutter speed so they aren't all blurry running around, well I might be limited to say 1/30 of a second which might not be a fast enough speed to freeze their motion. If I had a nice, fast prime like the 35mm f/1.4, I could shoot the same ISO at 1/250 of a second, three stops faster! Remember that the f-stop progression is logarithmic--3 stops doesn't mean 3 times more light, it means eight times as much light. 2x2x2=8.  (F1.4 to 2.0 is one stop. 2.0 to 2.8 is another stop, 2,8 to 4.0 is another stop).  Clear as mud?

[Bean Counter]

I believe Nikons flagship ultrawide is the 14-24mm. It bested anything put out by Canon for years but Canons new 16-35mm is giving it a run for the money.

[Smossy]

First of all, clear as mud. You honestly couldnt of really explained it better.

I went with Nikon for this reason specifically. Ive read time and time again and from slight research Ive noticed "Canon is top dog but Nikon is making progressions in they're tech about 3x faster and comes out with things that just wipe out canons expectations of they're own products. Im still learning but everything helps.

[Bean Counter]

Your D3300 is more than capable of making great images in 95% of what hobbyists will shoot. I haven't heard of a "bad" camera made in the last few years. Everyone seems to bringing something cool to the table. Fuji has been tearing up the compact camera market with the XT-1, x100T, Etc. Pentax leads the way with weather sealing--most of their cameras have 80+ seals on them! Sony has a full frame mirrorless camera,I think Nikon has the best body out there with either the d3x or the 800 line. Canons best development in the past few years has been their kick ass zoom lenses: like the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II, the 16-35 f/4 iS, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II, which is so dammed sharp it sleeps on a cutting board.

[Smossy]

Your D3300 is more than capable of making great images in 95% of what hobbyists will shoot. I haven't heard of a "bad" camera made in the last few years. Everyone seems to bringing something cool to the table. Fuji has been tearing up the compact camera market with the XT-1, x100T, Etc. Sony has a full frame mirrorless camera,I think Nikon has the best body out there with either the d3x or the 800 line. Canons best development in the past few years has been their kick ass zoom lenses: like the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II, the 16-35 f/4 iS, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS Mark II, which is so dammed sharp it sleeps on a cutting board.

Yeah I picked up a new D3300 and Beck/Smossygirl picked up the Sony A5000 mirrorless. I like mine better for the fact that its easy to use if understanding atleast some of the DSLR settings. Beck's is nicer on the fact that its compact and still carry's a huge package of having full universal lenses and does just about anything my DSLR will, just is alittle harder to do.