10-22mm f3.5-4.5 usm or 16-35mm f2.8

[Kevin D]

Hi All,
Thinking about buying one of these lens? Have any of you used them or own them?
Which one do you prefer and why? I have a canon 300d and looking for a wide angle lens.
Thanks, Kevin :) :)

[pcasciola]

I like the 10-22 because it's wide on my 20D. About the equivalent field of view as a 16-35 on a film camera. I don't like that it's EF-S, but I think it's a better lens than the Sigma 12-24. The 16-35L is a great lens, but is not much wider than the kit lens. If you're looking for a kit lens replacment, the 16-35L would be awesome. If you need wider, go 10-22. Just my 2 cents.

[DaveG]

Hi All,
Thinking about buying one of these lens? Have any of you used them or own them?
Which one do you prefer and why? I have a canon 300d and looking for a wide angle lens.
Thanks, Kevin :) :)

I've both so we can start there, I suppose. Although money will enter into your decision I have to say that these are two different lenses for two different purposes. I reach for the 10-22 when I have something specific in mind and do the same thing with the 16-35. I mention this becasue althoug their focal lenghts overlap a bit they are not even close to being the same lens. I think that it's perfectly correct to compare the 16-35 to the 17-40, or the 10-22 to one of the brand X lenses of the same focal length, but that it's no more meaningful to compare the 10-22 to the 16-35 than the 10-22 to a 70-200.

Now they both are great lenses and choosing one over the other (for $ reasons) depends on what you want to do with them. I love super wide angles and the 10-22 gives that back to me. It's a very sharp lens and I get a journalistic look from the thing. I use the 16-35 as a general purpose lens for commercial shooting. I could literally photograph a wedding without taking this lens off of the camera! But of course I do.

Now when I bought the 16-35 there was nothing wider (the 14mm doesn't count!) and I needed every mm that lens could give me. Then enter the 10-22. In some ways I think that I would buy the 10-22 and the 24-70 f2.8L, rather than the 16-35. But it's nice being able to go between 22 and 24 mm without changing lenses. And of course one of these days my 16-35 goes back to REALLY being a 16-35 and not a 26-56!