Originally Posted by GoneTomorrow
The 10-22mm doesn't really need IS. Only zooms with a long telephoto focal length really benefit from IS, which is why you should get a zoom other than the 100-300mm. Canon has zoom lenses that have IS, like the 55-250mm IS, the 75-300mm USM IS and the DO version of that one ("Diffractive Optics", much more compact than the ordinary 75-300mm and supposedly little to no CA). Or if you don't mind having a relatively short max focal length, the 28-135mm USM IS is a decent lens, which I've been using for a couple of years now. And you're right, all of Canon's non-L zooms are soft at full zoom and at the widest angle (and at really wide or narrow apertures too). It's just the nature of the beast, if you want a zoom that is corner-to-corner sharp at any focal length, you need to shell it out for an L.
To save some money, you can hold off on the 50mm f/1.8 mkII and just keep the 50mm macro for the time being. But I would definitely keep a true prime on your list of future lenses (esp. the 50mm f/1.4 USM). Macro lenses do make good primes, but they don't have as wide of an aperture and they're sharpest at macro distances.
And back to the zooms. When reviewer say a lens is "soft" at certain focal lengths/apertures, they're being extremely picky and are pixel peeping. I took this one with my 28-135mm USM IS at 28mm and f/11, and out-of-the-camera is wasn't bad, and with some PS unsharp mask, it came out fine:
That photo looks really nice
Even colors are vivid and detailed, you used a polarizer for that one?
Well about those lenses, when they say they're soft, they place a 100% crop of the corner of the photo, and it is indeed soft or shows signs of CA, but hell, its a 100% crop... I'm not even feeling the need to shoot 10MP photos, I don't even take 5.1MP ones on my DSC-P100, almost ALL photos taken with that camera were at 3MP, aside my modding project photos.
I have looked into a few zoom lenses, the 28-135 USM IS is kinda out of my league... 457€. The 55-200 USM is 355€ which is what I am willing to pay for a lens. That's why I'm kind of holding back on the 10-22... I would need to shell out min of 700 for that one... or a SIGMA 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM for 500, or a Tamron AF 10-24 / 3,5-4,5 SP DI II LD for a little more.
I'm going to look for some reviews on the sigma and Tamron wide angle lenses, it is quite painful to pay for a lens that costs more than the body itself, but hey... who said decent photography is cheap?
Then, for now my selections are: EF 50 f/1.8
, EF 50 f/2.5 M
, Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM
, and EF 55-200 USM
(Not that I want to take ultra zoomed in photos in low light conditions, as far as my experience goes, zoomed in lenses always have higher f values)
Thanks for your support so far
After seeing some sample shots of both Wide angle lenses, Sigmas 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM will be my selection. Here's a review on the sigma lens
And to compare here's a review made by a user
with the amron AF 10-24 / 3,5-4,5 SP DI II LD.Edited by Dragoon - 1/15/09 at 7:38am