Too Many Lenses...

Among my Christmas gifts, I received gift certificates towards some additional camera gear (it is for Adorama).  With this money, I plan on picking up a new lens.  The gift money would cover all of some of the options and leave me a bit short on some of them.  However, if I have to kick in a bit extra to get what I decide is the 'right' choice, it's well worth it (and much cheaper than if I had to pay for the whole thing).

I had a few lenses on my Christmas list already (we have a big shared Google Docs spreadsheet for the whole family), only some of which are even remotely realistic; I don't expect anyone to actually get me the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM:

The other lenses I looked at are not cheap, but are a good bit less expensive, like the the Canon EF 100mm 2.8L IS USM Macro:

...or the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC PZD:

The rationale:

• The 70-200 is a very versatile focal length and the above is a fabulous lens that I'd love to own at some point.  I rented (much cheaper, much ligher) the f/4 IS version for our trip to the UK this August from LensRentals.  I borrowed Matt's original version of the 70-200 2.8 IS for our honeymoon.
• I do not own a macro lens yet, and am interested in macro work.  The IS present in the L version is supposed to be stellar, and it seems like it would make handheld shooting much more feasible; it would be nice to avoid having to relegate macro shots almost entirely to the tripod.
• The Tamron was picked just to serve as a do-it-all travel lens.  It could work for trips on which I don't have the space to pack a few lenses, or if were were out on a day trip without any foreknowledge of what I'd be shooting.

Santa did not bring any lenses (although he did bring some nice photography accessories, like a Vello ShutterBoss and a pan/tilt head for my tripod), but he did bring these gift cards to use for photography equipment.  I thought about the macro lens (as well as its 100mm non-IS, non-L little brother) and the Tamron, and the more I looked...the more I decided to nix the Tamron from contention.  It seems that (aside from a few "this lens does EVERYTHING!" user reviews) most of the detailed reviews of this lens characterize it as of middling build/durability and good but not great optically.  I think the LensRentals commentary best summarized it as a 'compromise lens', and that is probably to be expected in a not-very-expensive super (15x) zoom targeted at crop sensor cameras (of which my 7D is one, admittedly).  I may actually end up using it, but I think I'd feel like I was 'being lazy' if I left it on, as opposed to bringing 2 or 3 better-performing lenses.

Somewhere in all of this, I had another thought: what about an ultra-wide?  I have really liked landscape photography on our trips, and such lenses are also great for architectural photos during these trips.  This complicates the decision greatly, as research suggests 3 contenders:

#1: The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.  This lens seems to be universally well-reviewed, and seems a bit like my existing 17-55 2.8: L optics/internal construction without an L physical exterior build (or designation); I'm not sure Canon would ever label an EF-S lens an L, in any case.

#2: The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ATX Pro DX. A tad less wide than the Canon, but with a constant 2.8 aperture.  A full stop better in the best case, with a gap that only grows from there.  For landscape photography, the speed is likely irrelevant, but it might be useful for architectural work.  The reviews also suggest this thing is built like a tank: optics on par with (some say better) than the 10-22, but with a build more like a Canon L.  Its zoom range is so small that it almost feels like buying a prime.

#3: The Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM.  I believe this is the widest rectilinear lens available for crop sensor cameras.  It has a bulbous front element (and a fixed hood), so conventional filters aren't usable.  This is the slowest, but also the widest.

So....it comes down to 2 decisions, in this order:

1. Macro, or ultra wide zoom.  My existing 17-55 is pretty useful for wide shots as it is...but these options are a lot wider yet.  The Canon macro could be used if I moved to full frame one day, whereas all of these ultra wides would only ever pair with crop sensor cameras like my 7D.  I'd probably take more shots/would get more use out of an ultra wide than a macro.
2. If ultra wide, which?  I think it's really between the Canon and the Tokina.  The 2.8 is attractive, but reviews suggest it's pretty soft at 2.8, and so the aperture advantage is really so great.  I have never owned a third party lens, and so also wonder (and see this mentioned in some user reviews) about AF behavior for such lenses versus the genuine Canon.  Ken Rockwell raves about the 10-22.  Then again, he is sweet on the Tokina, too.  I'd welcome any input!

I'm not sure which route I'll go.  I am tempted to rent both the Tokina and the Canon ultra wide lenses from LensRentals for a weekend and take a ton of similar shots...and then see if I have any preference for the results after getting them loaded into (and lens corrected) in Lightroom 3.  As for the macro, I could rent that  as well, picking a different weekend to play around with that.

Zurich

I meant to write this while still in Zurich, but it didn't get done.  I left Austin on 4/4 (Sunday), and went Austin -> Dulles -> Frankfurt -> Zurich, arriving mid-afternoon on Monday (Zurich time, 7 hours ahead of Austin).  I was able to roam around a bit some on Monday afternoon, as my coworkers (inbound from Munich) weren't arriving until Tuesday.  The hotel seemed to be pretty well located, right next to the opera house, and just a block or two from the lake.

View Larger Map

While roaming that afternoon, I took a few pictures.  This was my first out of town trip with my new Canon 7D.  I had hoped to bring along the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 lens that I bought along with the camera, thinking that the wide angle would be useful the many architectural and landscape shots I would take.  The lens that came with my original order had some sort of contamination on the lens (like a translucent, sticky drop of something), so I had to return it.  Given that Adorama was closed from 3/29 - 4/4 for Passover, there was no shot of getting the replacement in time.  I made do with the 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.5 kit lens.  I would have brought it anyway, as the nicer lens wouldn't have the range to zoom in on some building details.  Here are a few pictures taken that first afternoon:

The lovely balcony from the room

View down the street, from the balcony...

The promenade along the lakeside, about 2 blocks from the hotel

I just thought the sailboat looked cool

The promenade from afar, Alps in the background

The Grossmünster, a 12th century church nearby

There are a ton more such pictures at my Zurich Gallery.  Some of the night ones are a bit iffy, but there are a few worthwhile nighttime photos.  All of the pictures taken on my last evening in town are in the linked gallery.

It's Here: The 7D

I had long planned to order my first 'real' camera in time for the honeymoon trip. The little Canon SD700 IS I've had for a few years has served me well (although its meeting with Patrick's driveway during a St. Patrick's Day party has left it a bit banged up), as did the S400 prior to that.

A few months ago, I bought a Canon S90. This camera is a level beyond the normal point and click Canons: far more control, very fast, and great low light performance for a compact. We'll bring it on the trip for sure -- this will be what Jen has with her the whole time.

I ended up settling on a Canon 7D (the 28-135mm kit version) for my first 'real' camera for this trip. Several friends are Canon people, and their lenses (and expertise) will surely come in handy. This baby arrived earlier today:

I picked up several other gadgets in the same order (Adorama, this time) that will be of use to me:

1. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 lens
2. Lens hoods for the kit and the above lens
3. A little Joby Gorillapod SLR-Zoom mini (travel, in my case) tripod
4. A remote shutter release for use with the tripod
5. A B+W UV multi-coated filter for the 17-55
6. A SanDisk 16GB Extreme CF card
7. Both Blue Crane instructional DVDs for the 7D, to help me suck less
8. The Canon 9500mk2 wide (13"x19" capable) inkjet. Normally I'd have a hard time rationalizing this one, but Canon was running a crazy rebate when purchased with a 5Dmk2/7D/1D

I'll probably borrow a 70-200mm and bring the 17-55 on the trip. I've planned on carrying a day pack when Jen and I are out during the day on the trip, and so I'm likely to get one that is also very photography-targeted, but ideally without screaming "I have expensive photo gear within, please mug me". I think it is between the Tenba Shootout Backpack (in a medium), or one of the brand new Kata backpacks (Bumblebee 220, 222, or Beetle 282...not very well differentiated from one another). A friend's fiancée has the Tenba and loves it, whereas I don't know anyone with any of these particular Kata bags: they just went on sale March 1, and would have to be ordered (nobody in town sells them). After getting back from the trip, I'll probably take out the photography packing innards (they are removable with both bags) and use it as a regular daypack, putting the gear packing grid back in on the rare occasions I was taking a lot of gear on a hike of some sort. For 'normal' usage, I think I'd probably just carry some sort of messenger type of bag.