I am in the process of purchasing a wide zoom also and have wandered about all the forums and blogs looking for advice. But after using both Canon and other (Sigma/Tamron) lenses for my 300D, I can definitely say that the Canon lenses generally produce sharper, truer images. So I will be buying the 17-40L next week. Pay the extra money David, you won't regret it.

This shot is not as crap as you modestly believe. Though a nice (Canon?) wide angle might have given it more DOF, the eye moves nicely from the open sand to the blowing grass and the nuted colors complement each other well.

I really like this image, even though you think it's subpar.

And I'm jealous of your new camera!!!! It is something I def. want to purchase in the near future.

Congratulations on the new camera!

I also like the image, maybe more DOF, but in general I think it's good. And it has, what I call, the "chromasia-style". the light, the colors, or something, but that are your own personal signature.

I think I would go for the Canon lens. The extra stop is't _that_ important, when you can take photos at ISO 800 with amazing results, and with ISO 400 and almost no noise... and well... any extra mm is important with a non-full frame DSLR, as you can't do the same "trick" to wide the angle of a photo.

I'm looking forward to see your photos with the 20D!

I'm very excited to see the photos you produce with your new equipment. Congratulations on the purchase. You've made a lot of people jealous.

I find this image to be very surreal. The texture of the sand in the immediate foreground, the out of focus grass in the background, the in-focus grass and sand, and the very subtle glow really makes an interesting shot.

The colors are really great. At first, I thought a deeper blue sky would have been nice, but after digesting the photo, I really do like the pale blue sky.

Hopefully my layman's appreciation isn't completely useless.

I know this may sound stupid, but what does DOF mean?

LOL. David, your self-deprecating wit always sets me to smirking. Only YOU would call this image "not quite crap."

I, for one, can practically feel the wind whipping my hair and the sand stinging my arms. The scene is wonderfully soft and full of energy at the same time. It has, as Rodrigo put it, that “chromasia-style” that is uniquely your own.

Can't wait to see what you can do with this new camera.

What, you don't like the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM? ;)

Canon's site now lists a EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM which is specifically designed for the 1.6 mag DSLRs. Not an L and not sure of its availability yet. Adorama lists it at $799.99.

Congrats on the camera. My digital rebel is seriously jealous. This shot, in my opinion, is far from sub-par. The texture in the sand, the feathering of the grass, and the lighting are captured very well.

This image reminds me of a play by Beckett called "Happy Days"
I've come back to it three times and that's the first thing I thought of each time.

I don't think the DOF is an issue. I do think it's a little contrasty for the subject matter though. Still very nice, and definitely not crap. Did you use Noise Ninja on this? How did it cope with the sand?

I would get a 20D... actually I was saving for one but tonight someone f*@#'n kicked a huge dent in the side of my car (I think I knew who it was, i'm going to tear his head off tomorrow) ..This will set me back a good $600.. I guess this comment is just to vent about my misfortunes, however, that grainy sand and the grass did calm me down. For real.
Why do you need such a big and expensive camera when photoshop could help you make pictures from a finepix look amazing? You british people and your superiority complex.. :) (no harm intended to anyone).. i'm going to bed now.

I kinda wish I hadn't posted that. *shrug* sorry.

Congratulations on the new 20D. I know this feels like beeing in heaven as I've got my 10D only three months ago. The EF 17-40 L is a fantastic lens, just got it and I'm really comfortable with my first shots.

So, I'm looking forward to see what comes next from you and by the way, todays shot isn't crap in my opinion.

David, I follow your site every day and I don't think I have ever commented. But I had to on this one, I really don't see how you can think this image is sub-standard! I think it's your best for a while. It's just really simple and I think sometimes you have to keep it simple, the grass blowing in the wind, the texture of the sand and the composition, I love it!

Congratulations on your purchase. As for the lens, it's a tough call, but my Canon lens is one of the best buys I've ever done.

Hi david

I'm a long time lurker here, thought now was a good time to say hi.

Firstly, I like the image. The simplicity and purity is nice, I also think the foreground noise helps, and the muted saturation works well.

Congrats on the 20d. I made my first digital purchase last week, a 10d... as the prices were dropping to make way for the 20d. I purchased the Canon 17-40mm lens, it was a trade-off on speed, but I think I made the right choice... here's one of my first images from the wide angle...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2708735

I'm after a fast 50mm to complete my lens collection, been looking at the 1.4, but might hold on to see the results from your 1.8

I also bought a lensbaby (www.lensbabies.com) and had some great fun with it, I slammed the 10d into manual, and metered with an old Weston Master V. Here are the results of a day out in liverpool last week...

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=428964

Looking forward to seeing your first images.

steve

That's not crap, Dave :o)

I'll be most interested in seeing your first 20d images too, as I think of getting one myself. I've been using canon lenses for years, and yes, they're good.

I think this is one of my favorites of yours! Wonderful image.

Ruth - DOF is depth of field and referrs to how much and which parts of the image are in focus.

This image pretty much proves the point that I was trying to make yesterday in my comment. You dont have to be using the finest and the latest technology to make great images! Even if this had horrible resolution and other imperfections the framing and composition would make up for it!

I don't disagree that having a camera you are 100% comfortable with makes a huge difference even if most of it is not something others will notice. Honestly I would be hard pressed to tell the difference between this shots you have posted from the Fuji and the ones from your G5.

Hi Dave,

If you're looking for a good price on used glass, check out the buy and sell forums on the fred miranda forums. I picked up a 17-40L there and I've loved it since. Great lens!

Oops, the forum is really located @ http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

For camera reviews, i always check out fredmiranda.com. You'll find pertinent information on the actual difference between the two lenses in terms of quality. The extra speed makes a big difference, but noise can be dealt with easier than soft photos.

In other news, I really like this shot. Its simple, moody, and the colors are very nicely balanced. It seems to express, in some respects, the loneliness and beauty of the sea.

Were you serious when you labeled this as "not quite crap"? And if so, is it really based on photographic quality or is it a matter of taste?

One thing you might ask yourself, though, is whether the image really needs to be >140k. I just looked at it at NetMechanic, and as low as 50k I didn't see a discernible difference. If you do, then I guess you have to weigh the difference vs. the additional time waiting.

David ... crap? Come on. I think we all know this is not crap. The vignetting is what attracts my eye the most, but I also enjoy the DoF. Did you add any additional blurring in post?

As far as the lens goes, I would also go Canon. I have a Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX HSM. The HSM stands for Hyper Sonic Motor, which is Sigma's way of immitating Canon's USM. The lens has been pretty good, but the focusing is louder than my other Canon lens which has USM. Both lenses you're looking have their pros/cons. With a 1.6x crop, the wider lens the better. But sometimes having an extra stop to play w/ comes in handy. The Canon 16-35mm f2.8L has the best of both worlds, and it might be worth the (larger) investment if it is for paying work. I still regret not getting better glass for my 10D when I first bought it. Just my thoughts.

If you think this is crap, I don't agree with your taste. I personally think this is a lot better than many shots that you liked... this is superb

This is NOT crap! Actually it would fit perfectly on the wall in my livingroom. I really like it!

Having seen the amazing change an ultra-wide angle lens has done to my pictures, I'd recommend trying an ultra-wide lens out before you bye one. You might really dig the insane perspective after looking through the poor wide focal range of the G5.

Thanks everyone, and thanks for the advice about the lens - I ordered the 17-40 this afternoon.

As for this shot: I almost feel as though I offended people by saying that I thought it was almost crap. What I meant, I think, is that it didn't do too much for me, and required a lot of work in PS. The original had a washed out sky (which is colourised in this version) and much of the motion blur was also added afterwards. I guess that my problem with this camera, when trying to use it creatively, is that the control just isn't there. I can't set the aperture, or shutter speed, or compensate the exposure - and while those things don't matter for some shots (those primarily concerned with composition etc.) they are facilities that I miss.

pixpop: no, I didn't use Noise Ninja on this one.

miklos: no worries. You're right though, the FinePix can take good shots, that PS can make look great, but they don't convert too well to high-res prints, nor does the camera offer any control.

Andy: I guess it just didn't work for me. I do like the simplicity, but ... I don't know. For me there's something missing. I'm not sure what though.

Steve: your Lime Street station shot is wonderful. As for the 50mm lens: I did think about the 1.4, but after talking to a few people, who all raved about the 1.8, I didn't think that a slightly wider aperture justified the massive difference in price.

Matt: I agree, at this resolution it's difficult to tell the difference between the Fuji and the G5 - the differences are more noticeable at higher resolutions.

Ben/Jason: thanks, I've checked out the reviews and they were very helpful.

Frank: I use PS's Save for Web set at 75%, and on the whole I think it strikes a reasonable balance between file size and image quality. To be honest, I'm sure I could compress some images quite a bit more but I often don't have time to play around with the settings.

Jeremy/Maria: ok, it's not crap ;-)

David, me being a plebe, I don't have PS, but PS Elements, and I see the same ratings in "percents" you see, and I've generally been pleased with 50% or less. Try it for a while -- load some images without anyone knowing, run 'em through NetMechanic, and see what works. It's not always for you, it's for the people who have to wait for your photos. And you might find that your weekend traffic (when people aren't surfing through their T1 lines at work!) goes up. And of course there are joe dialups at -all- times. It's just an issue of needless burden.

Here's the url where you can check an image - - if you can work through it, you'll see the impact of various compression levels on the images, and when they show them to you, you can compare them to the original (or what you uploaded) merely by mousing over.

I own a few Sigma lenses. The EX line of lenses is really quite good. In fact, the lens that sits on my 10D most of the time is a Sigma 24-60 EX. Overall quality and sharpness is good, distortion is reasonable (and correctable). Sigmas also tend to be lighter than the Canon L lenses.

However, Canon L lenses are of far better quality. Much more sturdy construction, better autofocus, noticeably better sharpness, particularly at the extreme ends of aperture, truer color, and more resistant to flare. At least, that is my experience.

If you were considering a non-L lens, the Sigma might be a better choice. But even very good Sigma lenses are 70-80% as good as their L counterparts. Most of the time I don't notice the somewhat lower quality of the Sigma. When I want the best quality, I put on the 24-70L.

sub-standard? i'd be happy if i'd get a shot like this one! the vignetting, muted colors and slight blur...

Dave

This is a wonderful image, I Have not idea why you think it is crap. I love the motion in the long grass and the variation from light to dark in the sand. Stunning.

Congrats on the 20D. The 50mm 1.8 is a wonderful lens, I have one myself.

As for another lens. Matto had this awesome tamron 17-35mm 2.0 or 2.8. and I think Sigma has a similiar slight less expensive one. That is what I currently have my eye on.

If you can afford the Canon, go for it, I love how quiet and fast USM lens are, but they aren't always cheap unfortunately.

I wish I were standing in this picture right now with the warm sand in between my toes. This is really a beautiful shot.

i like this image... i've spent many days at ocean beach here in san francisco that feel very much like this. i can almost taste the salt on my lips and even though it's been a year since i lopped off all my hair, my hand goes to my face to brush it aside. it's bleak, but i find the shore to be very restorative. thank you for sharing this.

This image reminds me of the book Being Dead by Jim Crace. Read it and you'll understand. Joseph and Celice would have been well served to have died here.