Canon 10-22 or Tamron 17-35?

[Luvwine]

I am still debating lens choices at the wide end. I have a Tamron 17-35. Of course, it does not go really wide on my 20D with the 1.6x crop factor. I figured I would wait till the wide angle options become more clear and I knew that Tamron is to release an 11-18. Then I read that it is slower than the Canon offering and also is limited to cropped bodies (like the Canon). The Sigma 12-24 does not, according to one review, stack up well against the Canon. Thus, I have been considering getting the Canon to have a real wide angle lens for the 20D. The Tamron 17-35 I got primarily for its wide end (and slight speed advantage over the Canon 17-40). But I am beginning to think that I might be better off getting the Canon and ditching the Tamron. Is the Canon 10-22 as sharp as the Tamron at 17-22? How about as the Canon 17-40? I figure carrying two lenses to cover zoom 10-70 or so is better than three! Of course, there is a gap from 22-28 (next lens is my Tamron 28-75) or I could switch out the Tamron for the Canon 24-70 to close the gap to 2mm (but then the Canon weighs a ton compared to the light Tamron). Decisions, decisions. Any thoughts?

Best,

Luvwine
20D, Tamron 17-35, Canon 35 1.4L, Tamron 28-75, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, Canon 1.4x Extender

[mr.photoguy]

Very hard decision. I know this 1.6x crop factor is killing my landscapes.

I may have to get a 20mm prime.

The 10-22 is nice, but very expensive, then you have the 17-40L , which is also nice, but again very expensive.

I don't know if the Tamron 11-18 will be as sharp as the Canon though. It almost seems like it doesn't make sense to spend so much on a 10-22 or 11-18. Just get a 16mm and crop with your feet or CS.

[Andy_T]

Boy, you're changing lenses fast :lol:

Here's a review of the Sigma 12-24, don't know whether you've read it so far: http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_12-24_f4.5-5.6/a_Sigma_EX_12-24_f4.5-5.6.html

General opinion on the forum seems to be that when you buy a Sigma lens, you'd better buy it from a respectable source in case you have to exchange it ... their quality control being a bit off sometimes...

Best regards,
Andy

[Luvwine]

Yes, I am changing lenses fast--or at least trying to make decisions fast. I can trade in any of the lenses still and am trying my best to do it "right" the first time. I know that nothing is forever, but am trying to make the best decisions I can and boy the wide angle end is tough! Of course, then there is the primes versus zoom debate and, for poor light, the primes are awesome.....Now I understand how nice it is to have a second body!

Thx for the responses.

Best,

Luvwine
20D, Tamron 17-35, Canon 35 1.4L, Tamron 28-75, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, Canon 1.4x Extender

[DaveG]

I am still debating lens choices at the wide end. I have a Tamron 17-35. Of course, it does not go really wide on my 20D with the 1.6x crop factor. I figured I would wait till the wide angle options become more clear and I knew that Tamron is to release an 11-18. Then I read that it is slower than the Canon offering and also is limited to cropped bodies (like the Canon). The Sigma 12-24 does not, according to one review, stack up well against the Canon. Thus, I have been considering getting the Canon to have a real wide angle lens for the 20D. The Tamron 17-35 I got primarily for its wide end (and slight speed advantage over the Canon 17-40). But I am beginning to think that I might be better off getting the Canon and ditching the Tamron. Is the Canon 10-22 as sharp as the Tamron at 17-22? How about as the Canon 17-40? I figure carrying two lenses to cover zoom 10-70 or so is better than three! Of course, there is a gap from 22-28 (next lens is my Tamron 28-75) or I could switch out the Tamron for the Canon 24-70 to close the gap to 2mm (but then the Canon weighs a ton compared to the light Tamron). Decisions, decisions. Any thoughts?

Best,

Luvwine
20D, Tamron 17-35, Canon 35 1.4L, Tamron 28-75, Canon 50 1.4, Canon 100 2.8 Macro, Canon 70-200 2.8L IS, Canon 1.4x Extender

I'm amazed at how the 17-35 and the 10-22 get put in the same pot. My feeling is that these lenses and their focal lengths are so different that they should be judged independently. Test the 10-22 against the Sigma 12-24, or the 14mm Canon, that makes sense.

In any case I sould say that the 10-22 suppliments your 17-35 not replaces it. I just got the 10-22 and I have no plans to replace my 16-35 F2.8L with it at all. So far the 10-22 seems sharp although I have yet to do any extensive testing. Yaw seems to be a concern as you can make some horrible squishy shaped heads if you aren't careful. That problem - such as it is - would come with any lens of this focal length, and especially at 10mm.

By the new year I will have enough work done with the 10-22 to know if it's a good lens or not.

[Luvwine]

Dave,

Thanks for the reply and will be very interested to hear your thoughts as you get to play with the 10-22 more. I suppose I am trying to stick with the highest quality I can while avoiding changing lenses as much with the zooms. I accept changing lenses on primes as a necessary evil, but have been thinking that two zooms from 16mm (35mm equivalent) to 110 or so is more desireable than three if I can keep high quality on the images....

Best,

Luvwine

[Andy_T]

Hehe ... have you realized yet that the Canon 16-35/2.8 L will give you an additional millimeter focal length on the wide end, and the Canon 14/2.8 L even 2 mm (That would be about 1000$ per mm;-)))

OK, I'll stop playing devil's advocate to your wallet ...
but you might also want to take a look at the Canon 15 mm fisheye and the Tokina ATX 17 PRO, if you're not 100% content with the Tamron 17-35.

Best regards,
Andy