Canon 10-22 vs 17-40

[20dnut]

I have a Tokina 28-80 f2.8 and have settled on the Canon 70-200 f/ 2.8 for my indoor/outdoor sports photography. I would like to get a wide angle to round out the lower end of my range. I found the 28mm end of my Tokina did not seem wide enough for indoor group photos which I take 7-10 times a year of 10 -15 people. I also like to take landscapes. So I am looking at the 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 vs. the 17-40 f/4L. Does one have advantages over the other in these applications?

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm guessing a 20D?

Yes,. the advantages are;
10-22mm is wider and lighterweight.

17-40mm is faster (f/4) built tougher, and weather sealed. It will work with any Canon EOS camera.

Disadvantages;
10-22mm: Only works on EFS cameras (20D, 300D, 350D)
Less robust contruction, not weather sealed.

17-40mm: heavier, not as wide.

[20dnut]

I did not notice the S on the 10-22.:confused: I am not sure I want to get something I may not be able to use if I upgrade the 20D at some time. I have the 18-55 EF-S (kit lens), is the 17-40 L that much better? It almost seems like I am replicating what I already have.

[Andy D]

is the 17-40 L that much better? It almost seems like I am replicating what I already have.

Yes!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Are you disappointed with the Kit lens?

If not,. I'd just get the other stuff on your list and forget about the wide angle untill such a time as you feel you need to replace the kit lens.

[cactusclay]

If you get the 70-200 2.8, you might find it difficult being satisfied with lenes such as the 18-55, or even your sigma. The 17-40 is a nice lens and will probably outlast your camera, plus if you ever wanted to shoot film again, it would fit on those camera's as were the 10-22 would not.

[br3w0k]

I face the same dilema
but i prefer to go with 10-22, 17-40 is nice lens but not enough wide in 300D and 20D
plus i wont touched my film camera again anyway ...

[Hellashot]

You'd want to also consider the Sigma 12-24mm which is useable on all SLR cameras not just digital.

[20dnut]

I have to say that I am not quite satisfied with the Toikina 28-80. I find that it is a little soft when wide open and slow to autofocus. I had a chance to handle the 70-200 2.8L and it was a nicer lens. I think I will sell the tokina and kit lens and go with the 17-40. I'll pick up the 50mm 1.8 for the middle range. Thank you all for your input.

[Mark_Cohran]

I face the same dilema
but i prefer to go with 10-22, 17-40 is nice lens but not enough wide in 300D and 20D
plus i wont touched my film camera again anyway ...

But what if you get the bug and decided to upgrade to a 1D or 1Ds? Then those lenses would be useless to you. Personally, since I do intend to upgrade to the 1D, I am not going to purchase any EF-S lenses.

[k2kv]

The 17-40 L lens is a better "walkaround" lens than the 10-22, unless you get completely hooked on shooting really wide (always fun). If you have to choose between the two, though, definitely go for the 17-40. It's an 'L' lens, considered by many to be "the" lens if you can only carry one lens, whereas the 10-22 is more of a "specialty" lens. The 17-40 is capable of rendering truly gorgeous images with very high detail, and is built like a tank; that is why it has become so popular.

It is my most frequently used lens. I have a modest gallery at http://pbase.com/k2kv, where you can view a number of images taken with the 17-40 on my 20D.

Good shooting,

Jeff

[Adam Hicks]

All of you 'what if I upgrade past my 20D' owners need to stop and think about something. Canon lens resale value. Much higher than Sigma, etc. I bought my 10-22 from Dell for $649. I could sell it tomorrow or next year on eBay for that much or VERY close to it. Even if I used it for a year, bought a 1DmkII and sold the 10-22 for $550 I got every penny's worth out of it.

If I can rent that lens for $8 a month... why not? Who cares if it won't work in my next camera.

If you want a true super-wide angle lens for your 20D, the 10-22 is it. And I'm not so sure the 17-40 is weather sealed as mentioned before. Can someone confirm? Only a select amount of L lenses are weather sealed, and the 17-40 seems awefully cheap to be.

So wait for Dell to have another discount code sale (watch www.techbargains.com!) and go buy the 10-22. When you buy something new camera-wise, just sell the lens on eBay and move on.

BTW, the image quality of the 10-22 continues to surprise me. It's a VERY sharp lens for the money and capability.

Adam

[Jon]

Resale value only has meaning if you intend to replace the EF-S mount camera with a non-EF-S mount camera. If, like one or ninety of us, you plan to keep multiple cameras on hand for use, it becomes important to have lenses you'll be able to use across the board. I don't want to have to worry, in the middle of a fast lens change, whether I actually picked up the body with the EF-S mount or if I'm going to shred the mirror on my 1DsMkII (od D60, or 10D, or Elan 7e, or . . .)

[RichardtheSane]

And I'm not so sure the 17-40 is weather sealed as mentioned before. Can someone confirm? Only a select amount of L lenses are weather sealed, and the 17-40 seems awefully cheap to be.


Definitly weather sealed once there is a filter screwed on the front.

[cactusclay]

I think the only cameras that provide a weather proof seal at the camera lens mount are the 1D series.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

Get the 12-24 Sigma. It's EF (not -S) mount and is wide enough, IMO.