10-22 or 17-40L?

[Mycroft]

Which would you recommend? I like the fact that the 10-22 goes a lot wider than the 17-40, but the 17-40 is L glass, and it's $110 cheaper here. Also, the 17-40 would overlap quite a bit with my 28-135 IS, but I'm not too concerned about that... my dillema is, do I want L glass, or super-wide glass? Apparently I can't have both. :(

[J Rabin]

The real question is how much of the "near-far" or "environmental" landscape compositions do you do that need WA perspective distortion? And how much WA? I do some of that stuff at work. But, it can get overdone with too much WA. Like here's one on conflicts between too much problem wildlfife and people:
http://postit.rutgers.edu/uploads/NJ%20Road%20Kill%2Ejpg
I think that was about 17mm. Plenty for showing "a thing in its environment" that WA distorted perspective is for. If you need 10mm for more perspective distortion, get it. If you don't, the 17-40 has been sharp for me, flexible, stealthy. 10mm will REALLY distort perspective. Is this 17mm enough distortion? For architecture, someone else who knows that field would have to give you an opinion. That's a special WA expertise application. Jusr one person's opinion.

[picture-this]

Well the 17-40 is just as wide as your kit lens. Don't get caught up in the little red stripe, the 10-22 is a good lens with many L traits. For me it would be an easy choice I want the extra mm.

[nater]

For me, this question comes down to one simple issue: are ef-s lenses here to stay? Or will full-frame sensors become affordable in the near future, relegating the ef-s lenses obsolete? I wouldn't want to invest $800 in a lens that won't last for a long, long time...

Unfortunately, the answer isn't so simple. There's an interesting point-counterpoint debate on this topic over at luminous-landscape.com. Personally, I'm leaning toward the side that believes that full-frame will become affordable relatively soon (ie, maybe by the end of the decade).

[cmM]

I agree what nater said
DO you plan to keep your Rebel, or maybe upgrade to a bigger camera down the road?

[picture-this]

EF-S is here to stay for a while, I don't think your gona worry about it fazing out on you but will you end up forking out the cash for a pro body? even though they will come down pro bodies wil never be cheap. We don't buy camera gear as an investment.Who knows about resale, by the time you get a full frame camera you might have dropped and broken this lens.

[xstrio]

i think the pro cameras are too big and heavy and as i only do this as a hobby i dont think i will be getting one anytime soon, i think there are some other manufactures that have got resonably priced full frame cameras

[Adam Hicks]

As far as all the people who are saying 'are EF-S lenses here to stay', etc. Ignore them. It drives me nuts when I hear this. Let me give you my thinking -

10-22 produces L quality images. Period.
10-22 is dramatically wider than the 17-40 on a 1.6x camera.

I paid $649 for my 10-22 a few months ago. I could sell it tomorrow on eBay for more than that. WHY WOULD I *NOT* buy this lens? Because I'm worried it won't work on my next camera? Go take a look at good Canon glass resale values. I wouldn't be surprised if this lens sold for $600 two years from now. If that's the case, I paid $25 a year to use it. $2.08 a month. Right at $.07 a day :) It's DEFINITELY worth that.

So whether or not EF-S lenses are here to stay, and even if you plan on buying a 1DS MkII in 6 months, it's a smart purchase.

Adam

[rdenney]

For me, this question comes down to one simple issue: are ef-s lenses here to stay?

In this case, it's more personal, and therefore easier to evaluate. Does the original poster ever plan to upgrade to full frame? If so, the 10-22 won't work on that camera. If that is not on the horizon for him, then it's not an issue. If he changes his mind, the 10-22 will still have a ready market that will allow him to recoup some of his investment. If he doesn't change his mind, then it won't matter if Canon makes full-frame sensors available cheaply and discontinues the EF-S line. The lens he buys will still work on his camera.

Note that this question is complicated by the cheap availability of full-frame film cameras. I keep my Elan so that I'll have a full-frame camera available when I want truly wide angle images, and I have a 12-24 (as well as a 14 and a 16 fisheye).

On the policy issue, I think we are seeing that Canon intends to keep the APS format at least in the consumer Rebel line. Why else invest R&D into a line of APS-format lenses? The question for me is whether they will migrate the full-size sensor to the prosumer line, or leave it only in the top-of-the-line EOS-1.

The real answer has already been given: The 17-40 is a moderate wide-angle to moderate telephoto zoom on the Digital Rebel, similar to a 28-70 on a full-frame camera. That would not be wide enough for me, and therefore were the decision mine it would not be a choice between these two. If I wanted extreme wide capability, I would be choosing between the 10-22 and the Sigma 12-24, with the decision hinging on whether I intended to use the lens on a full-frame camera.

Rick "who definitely intends to migrate to full frame when it is affordable, even if affordability requires buying a used 1Ds when the 1Ds Mark XXX comes out" Denney

[nater]

As far as all the people who are saying 'are EF-S lenses here to stay', etc. Ignore them. It drives me nuts when I hear this. Let me give you my thinking -

10-22 produces L quality images. Period.
10-22 is dramatically wider than the 17-40 on a 1.6x camera.

I paid $649 for my 10-22 a few months ago. I could sell it tomorrow on eBay for more than that. WHY WOULD I *NOT* buy this lens? Because I'm worried it won't work on my next camera? Go take a look at good Canon glass resale values. I wouldn't be surprised if this lens sold for $600 two years from now. If that's the case, I paid $25 a year to use it. $2.08 a month. Right at $.07 a day :) It's DEFINITELY worth that.

So whether or not EF-S lenses are here to stay, and even if you plan on buying a 1DS MkII in 6 months, it's a smart purchase.

Adam

Sorry to drive you nuts. But your argument about resale value assumes that the ef-s lenses don't become obsolete. The resale prices you refer to are all based on the most current standard. But technology changes -- fast. Look at what happens to the size & functionality of computers, laptops, PDAs, cell phones, etc. over the course of a few years. It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that the price of sensors will drop substantially, and full-frame digital will rule.

In that event, where will the resale value for ef-s lenses be? The then-obsolete 10-22mm will not fetch $600, as it would if ef-s remained the latest standard.

I don't have a problem spending big $$$ on a lens if:
(a) it will last me for a long time
(b) I can sell it in the future for a minimal loss (or "usage fee", if you prefer)

But if the equipment stood a decent chance to fall in value to a fraction of its original price, then I would think harder about the decision. And that's why I posed the original question that I did.

Note to the easily impressionable: feel free to ignore me. ;)

- Nate

[nater]

By the way, where did you find it for $649? I know some folks got a good deal through Dell, but they don't carry the lens anymore.

[DaveG]

i think the pro cameras are too big and heavy and as i only do this as a hobby i dont think i will be getting one anytime soon, i think there are some other manufactures that have got resonably priced full frame cameras
And I think that you are wrong. There's the full frame 1DS Mark II and the Kodak. No more and no less.

[Johnny V]

If and when I can afford a full frame digital...will be the same time I'll be able afford to buy new lenses for it.

Buy the 10-22mm and enjoy it and use it. Or you'll be missing many photo opportunities now waiting for the next best thing to come along. In two or three years or more than likely five years.

[Adam Hicks]

And first off, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 12.x Mpixel 1.6x sensor before long (or thereabouts) Canon wouldn't spend the R&D and effort into producing a line of lenses for a current generation only. Look at how long their lens lines have lasted.. basically FD and EF / EOS series lenses. I expect APC sized sensors to be around long enough to justify the EF-S lens purchase... and even if they're not, there will certainly be people using used 20D's a few years from now that can use the lens. By then mine will have paid for itself many times over.

Adam

[ScottE]

I use a 17-40 and a 28-135 IS in a small camera bag as my walk around/tourist equipment. I find that the 17-40 does not go wide enough for this purpose. For that reason, I will be purchasing a 10-22 soon to replace the 17-40 for that purpose. It should be goo companion for the 28-135.

The reason that I have not purchased yet is that I want to see what the new Sigma 10-20 will be like. It might also be a good wide angle lens.

Scott

[rdenney]

And first off, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 12.x Mpixel 1.6x sensor before long (or thereabouts)

I agree with you. I think it's pretty well set in stone that Canon will maintain a line of DSLR's with APS-sized sensors.

I also am convinced that Canon is too smart to give up it's technical advantage over Nikon by going to smaller sensors in the top-line DSLR. They will remain committed to full-frame photography, and that's why it takes a red rubber band to turn a 10-22 into an L--it's their pro line for pro cameras, and their pro DSLR will always have a full-sized sensor.

The question for me is what they will do at the prosumer level. So far, all the prosumer DSLR's have used the smaller sensor, from the D30 to the 20D. But they have come out with a range of slightly slower L-series lenses clearly targeted at high-end amateurs (pros will already have the faster counterparts of these lenses). That's the same target market as the 20D. So, why build lenses that support a large sensor for buyers who, by and large, are using a smaller sensor? I hope these tea leaves tell us that Canon intends to migrate the large sensor down to the prosumer line.

I'm not personally much interested in a 12-megapixel APS-sized sensor. I don't think that would yield larger prints that looked any better. There would be more pixels, but they will be noiser (there are only so many photons to go around, and no improvement in sensor technology can solve that problem), and the bigger prints will magnify other faults more--lens and technique faults--that are already cheek-by-jowl with resolution as the factors limiting enlargement of 6 and 8 megapixel images.

But a 12-megapixel full-sized sensor would be peachy. I'm hoping that Canon will eventually introduce a variant of the original EOS-1Ds sensor in a prosumer body. Let the EOS-1 have the 20-megapixel sensor.

Rick "who agrees that the EF-S lenses should have enough legs not to become orphans any time soon" Denney

[paulhillion]

I sold the 17-40 to fund my purchase of the 10-22, don't regret it for a moment. Fantastic lens!

[Jack W.]

I got the 10-22 from Dell last month for $640 total (they charge tax in my state).
Great lens.

[tombryan]

I have the Tamron 28-75, and opted to start out with the 17-40 first. I know it overlaps my 28-75, but it gives me that added width when I need it. I have both lenses on 2 different bodies at weddings and the compliment each other quite nicely.

The 10-22 to me is more of a specialty lens for those dramatic shots, which I would love to have, but I didn't like the fact that it was a variable aperture. Seems like it would be more of an outside lens. Don't get me wrong though, I want this lens. Just thought the 17-40 was a better choice to start out with with the way I shoot and for what I want it for.

[Adam Hicks]

Hmmm interesting... As far as outside lens goes, it's brighter than the 17-40 for the wide range, and only 4.5 vs. 4.0 on the 'long' end... so the outdoor lens statement is not a very strong reasoning (if it were 5.6 vs 4 I'd give it to ya.) Variable aperture isn't such a bad thing. And then again, I would say that it *IS* a mostly outdoor lens, as most subjects you would typically shoot at 10mm will be outdoors (in my experience)

Adam

[fatboy_4]

It's been interesting to read the opinions. I am about to buy the 10-22, sounds like it is a good lens. It isn't going to be in the shops here for a few weeks (about 1200 Aussie dlooars) but I can get it online now for about $1000.

Isn't obsolesence a given? Most would have plenty of old gear that isn't worth much these days- give it to someone (kids?) to learn on. I wouldn't worry about the smaller format becoming redundant- buy it and use it and if you want or need to upgrade then go for it.

If you want an investment buy real estate!:p

[sparker1]

With a good flash, the 10-22 makes an excellent lens for shooting indoors, such as for realtors putting home interiors on-line. From all I've seen and heard, it is L quality without the nomenclature. I think the 10-22 is a good complement for the 24-70, forget the 17-40.

[cdhender]

Man, I am in this exact position. I was leaning toward the 10-22 and this post re-affirms it. Can't wait to post some shots.

[DaveG]

It's been interesting to read the opinions. I am about to buy the 10-22, sounds like it is a good lens. It isn't going to be in the shops here for a few weeks (about 1200 Aussie dlooars) but I can get it online now for about $1000.

Isn't obsolesence a given? Most would have plenty of old gear that isn't worth much these days- give it to someone (kids?) to learn on. I wouldn't worry about the smaller format becoming redundant- buy it and use it and if you want or need to upgrade then go for it.

If you want an investment buy real estate!:p

I had a decision to make about the 10-22. Do I accept the possibility that it could become obsolescent if and when (five years?) a full frame Canon DSLR is affordable enough for me to have one? What do I do until then? Go without? The thing is that I need that focal length and I needed it NOW.

Sure it could be worth bumpkiss when that D1S Mark IV costs $2200, but meanwhile I've had and made money with that lens for that whole time.