10-22 or 17-40 for 20d?

[kwang0429]

Which one is better? I know 17-40 is L lens, but 10-22 is designed for 20D, which one have better quality and sharpness? anyone experienced with those yet?

Thanks.

[jbradc]

I can't give an opinion on the new 10-22 but the reviews I have read have been mostly positive. I have the 17-40 L and I love it, it is super sharp and has great contrast (like all L glass). I would get the 17-40 L based on its quality and the fact that if you ever move up to a full frame SLR or even the 1D Mk II (1.3 crop factor) the 17-40 L will still work and the 10-22 will only work on the 20D and the Drebel.

[Hellashot]

if you ever move up to a full frame SLR or even the 1D Mk II (1.3 crop factor) the 17-40 L will still work and the 10-22 will only work on the 20D and the Drebel.

My thoughts exactly. Might want to consider the Sigma 12-24 that is not sensor size specific. Go here for the lens: http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/sc/from-shopping.asp?id=964591187&rf=dt

[eosster]

Another vote for 17-40mm f/4L, you will never regret it. You will be able to use it with full frame or film SLR, unless you need a true wide angle.

[Luvwine]

Count me as the contrarian. I got the 10-22 instead of the 17-40 (or the Tamron 17-35). I like having true wide angle, the lens is sharp and light, and I don't see the 1.6x cameras disappearing anytime soon. Thus, if you go to a 1.3x or FF camera, you will not have trouble selling the 10-22 (assuming you don't want to keep a 20D or its successor as a second camera.

The bottom line is whether you want true wide angle. If you do, the 10-22 is probably the best option for a 20D. If you don't, then get a different lens.

Best,

-Luvwine

[Jim_T]

The bottom line is whether you want true wide angle. If you do, the 10-22 is probably the best option for a 20D. If you don't, then get a different lens.
-Luvwine

Yes..

A difference of 7mm is a HUGE difference when it comes to comparing field of view. The 17-35 is a better lens, but the 10-22 is MUCH wider.

With the 1.6 crop, the apparent focal length of a 17mm lens is 27.2mm
The apparent focal length of a 10mm lens is 16 mm..

Comparing these lenses is kind of like comparing apples and oranges.. If you have need for a *real* wide angle lens then the 10-22 is the choice..

[ChrisG]

I have both lenses.... they are both very good. I am impressed with both of them. I took the 10-22 travelling along with my 24-70 and 100-400. I used the 10-22 quite a bit since I got the lense just before my trip. It was fun finally having a wide angle lense again since switching to digital. But unless you really want/need the wide angle, the 17-40 would be a more usable range for everyday shooting.

[DaveG]

Which one is better? I know 17-40 is L lens, but 10-22 is designed for 20D, which one have better quality and sharpness? anyone experienced with those yet?

Thanks.

It's very difficult to compare these two lenses. I have the 10-22 and a 16-35 f2.8L. They slightly overlap in focal length but I use them for entirely different purposes. I don't think that one replaces the other but compliments it, and that's my difficulty in comparing them. It's like asking which golf club is better, a three iron or a five iron? It all depends on what I want to do, and since that changes on shot by shot basis, I need both of them.

Is there more distortion with the 10-22? Of course, how could there be not? Yet it's very corrected. But at 10mm if you put a sphere in a corner you'll get a football shape instead. Used with care there's a journalist look that you get from a superwide angle that I've missed since my full frame Nikon days.

My decision to buy the 10-22 was made after I decided that it was not realistic to think that I'll own a 1:1 Canon camera in the next five years. So that lens - for the 20D only - is not going to be a transitional tool. In seven years when I have a $2000 Canon 26MP full frame camera am I going to look back and ask myself why I spent so much money on the 10-22? Probably, but then I'm going to forget that without it I wouldn't have had anything wider than 16mm (effectively 26mm)for all those years too.

[digitalfailure]

I'll wave the flag for the 20D and 17-40 L as it's my personal rig for general shooting.

[ScottE]

I have the 17-40, but I don't find that it goes wide enough. I am used to using a 20-35 with my 35mm film camera and can't get all the shots I want with 17-40 that is only about the equivalent of 28mm at the widest.

I am planning to get the 10-22 in the near future. After that I will decide whether to keep the 17-40 after I have used both for a while.

[pierrot]

The 10-22 is a pleasure to work with. I really re-discovered wide-angle, I was missing it since the day I moved from film to DSLR.
Surely not as sharp as a 17-40 "L" can be (I guess, I don't owe one), but a very good lens even wide open. Near to no vignetting at 10mm, even with an UV or CPL filter (though not both of them together).
Excellent look and feel, far above the "plastic touch" of the 18-55 coming with the 20D body. In a nutshell: I'm very pleased with it and do not regret any cent of my (reasonable) investment ;)

[DionM]

I love wide angles.

I seriously considered the 10-22 but I figured that I will go full-frame one day, so the 17-40 was it. Don't want to keep on replacing perfectly good glass!

Mate has the 10-22 and it gives some awesome shots. I so want one but ... EF-S has not got me convinced.

[mdr]

The EF-S factor, better general use and better image quality made up my mind. Got the 17-40mm L when I bought the 20D in December. I have no regrets to date, results are absolutely supurb. I occasionally miss the wide angle I used to get with my 20-35mm on the EOS 3, but hope that I have saved up enough money to buy the new ultra wide L lens Canon will be bringing out in spring.

[moebius]

if you want a real wide angle, go with the 10-22, not L glass, but very nice and good quality. Don't forget : With the crop factor the 17-40 is only a 28mm equivalent in 35mm format.

[kb244]

Although I am very intriqued by the 10-22 , I'm gona have to go with everyone else's opinion, while the crop factor is in effect, going with the Canon EOS series is all about investment, everything you put your livlyhood and effort into, is going to stay with you til its obliterated or sold. In the case of the two above, a 10-22 is an EF-S lens, there are only TWO bodies that will current take the EF-S lens, and there is no garantee that EF-S bodies will be as common in the future, as opposed to the 17-40 no matter what they come out with next it should work, and heck will work if for some reason you go film. I vote for the 17-40 , unless you definitly need wide angle.

[picture-this]

Get the EF-s 10-22f3.5-4.5 USM + EF 24-70f2.8L USM $$

[Andy_T]

Another option ... get the 17-40 and a used film body ... that way you get true 17 mm for your wide angle shots. If you don't do too many of them, it might be an idea.

Best regards,
Andy

[Akreager]

If you want to go wide I suggest the 15mm fisheye. You can perspective correct in the computer, crop, and your immage quality will be better than the 10-22.

[Jay J]

Kwang,

First of all the 17-40 is going to a more "versatile" lens as opposed to the "wide angle" 10-22. With the 17-40 you get a good amount of wide angle as well as a medium range lens. I've never used the 10-22 but I can tell you that I shoot entire weddings week after week with nothing on my camera but a 17-40. When I need a different lens I grabe the second camera and shoot the 24-70 but that's rare. The 17-40 is a GREAT lens.

Jay J

[DaveG]

If you want to go wide I suggest the 15mm fisheye. You can perspective correct in the computer, crop, and your immage quality will be better than the 10-22.

No it won't.

[Mark Kemp]

One point to remember is that the 10-22 is smaller and lighter - which may make a difference to you.

[michael.luczkow]

So is the 10-22 the widest I can go right now with my 20D? :confused:

[moebius]

So is the 10-22 the widest I can go right now with my 20D? :confused:
YES

[Adam Hicks]

Ha yeah image quality from the fisheye once corrected should be better than a disposable point and shoot... but not better than the 10-22. What I'm REALLY interested in is sharpness tests between the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 10-22. The Sigma has it's advantages of being non-EFS but I'm guessing the image quality isn't as good as the 10-22 as far as sharpness.

Anyone have a link or thoughts there?

[Jack W.]

If you're interested in the 10-22, Dell has a good deal right now.
10% off+$70 off a $500 purchase+ free shipping.
Coupon code is SMXS7P$V?QH9VP
Jack

[DaveG]

Ha yeah image quality from the fisheye once corrected should be better than a disposable point and shoot... but not better than the 10-22. What I'm REALLY interested in is sharpness tests between the Sigma 12-24 and the Canon 10-22. The Sigma has it's advantages of being non-EFS but I'm guessing the image quality isn't as good as the 10-22 as far as sharpness.

Anyone have a link or thoughts there?

There seems to a number of people who have gotten bad 12-24's and realized that after they've images from good ones. A lot of these comments may be anecdotal or there may be production problems.

I thought long and hard about the 12-24. It could be used in the future if I were to buy a 1.3 or 1.0 camera and it's been available for well over a year (or more). But I've had very good luck with manufacturer brand lenses both Nikon and now Canon, and I don't think that Brand X lenses are a good investment.

You CAN measure the optical quality, but that's almost aways done with a new lens. What you can't measure is durability and production standards. What will that lens be like in three years after normal use?

In any case I voted (with my money) for the 10-22 and haven't regretted it even a little.

[Citizensmith]

The 17-40 wins in the 17-40 range, the 10-22 winds in the 10-17 range. One is a standard lens on a 20D, and the other is a wide angle. Rather than comparing their quality why not just decide which range of focal lengths will be of most use to you.

[Redbird_xo]

This might be a little off topic...

Tokina has released a ultra-wide lens for Nikon (heard from the dealer that the Canon mount version is coming in a few months). The selling price for the Nikon mount is around $550. The Nikon counterpart is selling for around $1000. The dealer also indicated that the Canon version shouldn't be too much more than the Nikon version. Another serious and affordable competition on the ultra-wide arena?

See the attached pic.

[pcasciola]

So is the 10-22 the widest I can go right now with my 20D? :confused:
No. If you want to get really crazy wide, Sigma makes an 8mm circular fisheye, or you can also get a Peleng manual focus 8mm for under $200. They both can produce some pretty interesting shots.

Tamron is also releasing an 11-18mm Di-II in a few months. Di-II lenses are like EF-S lenses, but I'm pretty sure they are not EF-S mount so they can be used on a 10D as well as the 20D & 300D.

[AzzKicker]

For the price of a 17-40.

You could get 2 lense to cover 12mm to 70 :) Why waste your money on "L" glass. Some test even show teh Tamron counterpart to completely OWN the 17-40 even

[DaveG]

For the price of a 17-40.

You could get 2 lense to cover 12mm to 70 :) Why waste your money on "L" glass. Some test even show teh Tamron counterpart to completely OWN the 17-40 even

Because in ten years that L lens will still be performing at a very high level while the Tamron has been in the ground for five.

I'd love to read some of those reviews you mentioned. Could you point us to their source?

[Jonny]

No it won't.

Does anyone have any images to share with us at the wide 10mm end?

Also, call me a thick newbie if you wish, but if the Canon 15mm is a fisheye why is the 10-22 a fisheye too at the 10mm end?

[DaveG]

Does anyone have any images to share with us at the wide 10mm end?

Also, call me a thick newbie if you wish, but if the Canon 15mm is a fisheye why is the 10-22 a fisheye too at the 10mm end?

The focal length has only a little to do with whether the lens is a fisheye or a super wide angle. The 10-22 is "corrected" as much as Canon can to remove barrel distortion.

If you had two vertical rods as the subject of your photograph and you placed them at each edge of the composition, they would be straight lines with the 10-22. With a fish-eye Canon - and everyone else - WANTS barrel distortion and those same vertical lines would be curved in. That's barrel distortion and the fisheye effect.

Email me at dgrandy@grandyphoto.com and I'll send you some shots with the 10-22 at 10mm.

[Jonny]

The focal length has only a little to do with whether the lens is a fisheye or a super wide angle. The 10-22 is "corrected" as much as Canon can to remove barrel distortion.

If you had two vertical rods as the subject of your photograph and you placed them at each edge of the composition, they would be straight lines with the 10-22. With a fish-eye Canon - and everyone else - WANTS barrel distortion and those same vertical lines would be curved in. That's barrel distortion and the fisheye effect.

Email me at dgrandy@grandyphoto.com and I'll send you some shots with the 10-22 at 10mm.

Great, thanks for that...all makes sense now.

One more question....how long can a focal length of a 'fisheye' go? Is is retricted to 15mm or less?

[DaveG]

Great, thanks for that...all makes sense now.

One more question....how long can a focal length of a 'fisheye' go? Is is retricted to 15mm or less?

Nikon makes a 16mm fisheye so I guess that it can go slightly longer. I've never heard of a fisheye longer than this - at least for 35mm format.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I too do not follow the logic,.. regarding the 15mm fisheye?

So,. I'll bite,. Why would the image quality be better on the "corrected" 15mm fisheye than it would be on the 10-22mm?