17-40 or 10-22 for 30D for pj, sports, & landscapes... which one??

[herbe_nelson]

Hey all!

I realise that this lens comparison and questioning may happen often, but my situation, I feel, is a bit different. All too often opinions are asked about these lenses in regard to landscapes alone. I OTOH am looking for a WA, or indeed UWA, to replace my EF-S 18-55 II. It's a good lens but as my photography has improved I have started to notice its shortfalls more and more, and wish that I had something more.

I would be using the lens on either my 30D or 350D.

Since I am a student, my budget is limited, so even though I would LOVE to have a 16-35L II I just don't have that cash atm.

From the images that I have seen, I notice that the 17-40 has better IQ. This is my opinion atm.

The problems I have with choosing the 10-22 are: its aperture is not constant while zooming, no hood is included, its an EF-S and in the future (hopefully ~<1yr) I will look at getting either a 5D or used 1D MkII. I know that people make the argument that I would not lose a lens, but I just don't like getting a fill in lens (if you know what I mean).

The only problem I really have with the 17-40 is that it is f4 and I worry that this may be problematic indoors or in darker areas. Especially when going pj or using it on a second body while shooting sports in dim light when the action gets close quick. Apart from the aperture I am loving what I am seeing from the lens.

Currently I have: 18-55, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4, and 400 5.6. Also a 580ex II.

I looked at the possibility of the 24-70 2.8, because of the 2.8 aperture and other nice features, but it is almost twice the cost of either the 17-40 or 10-22.

Your help would be greatly appreciated in order to help me decide between these two lenses based on my situation.

thanks heaps,
Nelson

[yankees3791]

go for the 17-40mm...it will be nice and IMHO 22mm is just too short and often is very limiting...especially if you are going to be going full frame in less than a year, go for the 17-40...it will be wide now, but once you go full frame it will be UWA

[herbe_nelson]

i thought i should mention that the aspect i get with my 18-55 atm is plenty wide enough for me. That is one reason why am leaning away from an UWA

[yankees3791]

then the 17-40mm will be fine!

[herbe_nelson]

anyone have an idea how the 17-40 performs in dimly lit situations?

[drPheta]

I do wish my 17-40 were faster, however it's nothing a bump in the ISO couldn't compensate for. Your setup looks similar to mine, and I just whip out the 50/1.4 when I'm in a low light crunch. If it's 17-30ish mm FL I need to shoot at, luckily the shutter speed can afford to be around 1/20ish (or even less at real high ISO) and work out well.

Take the 17-40. It's a gem of a lens.

[René Damkot]

17-55 EFs is what you want for a walkaround zoom.
Buy what you need now, not what might be needed in a year.
My 0.02

[herbe_nelson]

yeh ime not afraid to bump up the iso if need be, but really it's like you said, when shooting wider you only need to be faster than 1/20ish which is pretty slow. The 50mm is a great ens and my absolute go to for low light shooting. Although I would like to use zooms in low light nothing beats a good prime.

later down the road I hope to add the much touted 35 1.4L to my arsenal as a wider low light option.

looks like I may be heading for the 17-40 then

[herbe_nelson]

has anyone actually used the 10-22 in a sort of pj style? I suppose it would act like a 16-35 on a 1D or 5D. Any experience as to whether it can hold its own even with its variable aperture?