10-22mm or 17-40L? Can't Choose!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hello everyone, within the month I hope to purchase a wide angle lens, and yesterday I visited my local ritzcamera to try a few out. I looked at the 10-22 and the 17-40L. The 17-40L was AMAZING! I loved the feel, look, and pictures it took. I sort of want a walk around lens, and the 40mm on that lens seems like a decent range accompanied by my 50 f/1.8.

I was in love with the thing, ready to purchase it, when all of a sudden I saw a 10-22 sitting on the shelf. Being the curious kinda guy I am I just had to give it a try. Sure enough, it was INCREDIBLE! So wide! My jaw dropped, and now I'm hooked on that lens as well.

So now I have to make a choice, 17-40L or 10-22.... can't have both, can afford either one, just not sure if the 10-22 is toooooo wide. I want to use the lens to shoot cars, architecture like local homes and stuff, events (big group shots) and landscapes. I'd like to get artistic with some of my shots though. 10-22 is better for that isn't it? Will the 17-40L surfice? I liked the fixed f/4 apeture on the 17-40L. Hate the f/3.5 to f/4.5 on the 10-22. It just annoys me....

Gaaahhhhh, can't choose! Help! From your experiences with these lenses, what would you recommend?!?!?! Thanks!

[VentureFox]

Hello everyone, within the month I hope to purchase a wide angle lens, and yesterday I visited my local ritzcamera to try a few out. I looked at the 10-22 and the 17-40L. The 17-40L was AMAZING! I loved the feel, look, and pictures it took. I sort of want a walk around lens, and the 40mm on that lens seems like a decent range accompanied by my 50 f/1.8.

I was in love with the thing, ready to purchase it, when all of a sudden I saw a 10-22 sitting on the shelf. Being the curious kinda guy I am I just had to give it a try. Sure enough, it was INCREDIBLE! So wide! My jaw dropped, and now I'm hooked on that lens as well.

So now I have to make a choice, 17-40L or 10-22.... can't have both, can afford either one, just not sure if the 10-22 is toooooo wide. I want to use the lens to shoot cars, architecture like local homes and stuff, events (big group shots) and landscapes. I'd like to get artistic with some of my shots though. 10-22 is better for that isn't it? Will the 17-40L surfice? I liked the fixed f/4 apeture on the 17-40L. Hate the f/3.5 to f/4.5 on the 10-22. It just annoys me....

Gaaahhhhh, can't choose! Help! From your experiences with these lenses, what would you recommend?!?!?! Thanks!

Definately go with the 17-40mm - you won't be disappointed. An awesome lens. Love it!

[iso100]

It depends on how wide you really need to go. I recently sold my Sigma 15-30 and upgraded to the Canon EF-S 10-22 this weekend. It's pretty much TOO wide for most walk-around shooting, so it'll be reserved for specific subjects that can't be captured in other ways.

[cdhender]

I'm in your exact position. I have personally narrowed down my choices to the 16-35 or the 17-40. I chose not to get the 10-22 (or Tokina 12-24) because for me that's just too wide. I don't shoot that wide on a regular basis. I think the 17-40/16-35 will be enough for me.

From what I've read, the 17-40 is a bit better built and a bit sharper. But those qualities alone aren't enough to pick it over the 10-22. I think the "How wide is wide enough" question is going to be your deciding factor.

Good luck deciding :)

[billh101]

Obviously, if you need or want that superwide view, the 17-40 isn't going to cut it for you. But, if you just want a good wide angle zoom, I'm pretty happy with my 17-40. I wish it had a little more on the long end, but it's my walk around lens. Roughly 95% of my shots are taken with the 17-40 now. It seems to be sufficiently sharp at all apertures and as you mentioned, it has a good feel to it. Most of the shots on my gallery were taken with that lens, if you want to look... www.pbase.com/billhuegerich . -Bill

[garbidz]

Obviously, there is the choice between two radically different focal lengths. As I have the flimsy kit zoom covering the area I seldom use, I opted for the 10-22. It is on the D20 like the 16-35 that I did not buy when I found it at a good price and it still bothers me. Seriously, the 17-40 will find much more use, I am sure. PLUS it is an "L" lens which is a bonus if you happen to do travelling in the tropic or the deserts. It does not eat dust...

[lensmen]

17 - 40 , the L lens. Can't go wrong with this.

[Sean-Mcr]

I'd personally go for the 17-40 over the 10-22. I have to say that having had th 16-35 i dont think the extra cost is warrented over the 17-40.

[eosnob]

I have both. The 10-22 is great for creative fun. But, based on your requirements, the 17-40 would be a more appropriate choice for people shots, and you can get creative with this lens too. What's more, you get the lens hood bundled with the 17-40.

[MrChad]

Wouldn't the 17-40L be the better value, it works great on the 1.6x body for a normal FOV and if you picked up (or had a Canon film body, I have an Elan 7 I use) you could get the way wide side when you want to be creative. Any cheap film body should do, how cheap is a film Rebel used these days? Likely under $100 used.

35mm film it's still the cheapest way to the wide alternative :P Plus if this 1.6x thing dies one day you will at least have a lens worth owning on a full frame DSLR the EF-S will likely have a more limited use.

[Rob612]

IMHO it all depends how much wide you want to go. Personally, I'm on the track that "wider is better", so I've got the 10-22, much more creative @10-12 and a normal wideangle @22 (considering the 1.6x factor). Optically, I have no experience with the 17-40 but for my uses right now it was too narrow. But I am going to get one as soon as I fix my need for a second body to avoid lens swapping as much as possible.

[ddelallata]

if this 1.6x thing dies one day you will at least have a lens worth owning on a full frame DSLR the EF-S will likely have a more limited use.

That was my biggest fear, so a few minutes ago I canceled my order for a 10-22 EF-S that was on backorder and ordered the EF 17-40L instead. Who knows?, maybe a few years from now full size sensors will be cheap enough to be standard on amateur and pro-sumer bodies and those with the EF-S 10-22 will find themselves with an expensive but useless high quality lens.

[Rob612]

Who knows?, maybe a few years from now full size sensors will be cheap enough to be standard on amateur and pro-sumer bodies and those with the EF-S 10-22 will find themselves with an expensive but useless high quality lens.

Sure, it could be. In the meantime, you won't have a superwide available. Of course it depends on what you usually shoot. Long time ago, when I was using film cameras, I used to go on vacation with a 15 or a 19 mm only, so the 10-22 was my preferred choice.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hhhhmmmmmmm........ definately swaying more towards the 17-40L right now...... it's L, it's good looking, feels good, takes sharp pics, has a fixed f/4, probably wide enough for my needs, and narrow enough for candids, plus paired with my current two lenses I can cover a pretty good number of focal lengths......

Another thing; I want to get creative with my sports photography. I was thinking stuff like, crouching beside a ramp as a roller blader flies over my head doing a 360 kind of thing. Really up close action stuff. :-) That'd require some fast AF...... Can either of these lenses perform well in such a circumstance?

[rent]

go for it! as for me, for the longest time i had a very similar set up: 17-35mm/f2.8L, 50/1.4 and 70-200/f4L. it had turn out to be a very versatile rig. -alex

[shiato storm]

17-40 is a good enough range. I don't think the extra 1mm difference is quite worth it, in fact forget all this techno mumbo jumbo and just shut up and get the 17-40 L and get on with using it rather than ponder its uses here...! you'll be much happier with pictures taken thatn constant pondering. plus its an L glass so if you aren't happy you are pretty much guarenteed a good return on it.

[Toogy]

Another thing; I want to get creative with my sports photography. I was thinking stuff like, crouching beside a ramp as a roller blader flies over my head doing a 360 kind of thing. Really up close action stuff. :) That'd require some fast AF...... Can either of these lenses perform well in such a circumstance?

I don't think the 17-40 will be wide enough if you plan to do stuff like this. It has the 35mm FOV of a 28mm lens. Not that wide really.
The 10-22 focuses super fast, so I wouldn't be concerned about that.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Awwwww crap!

Oh well, I don't care. I think I'll go with the 17-40L for now, and if I need more, I'll get a 10-22 EF-S later on down the road.

Unless there's someone out there with some convincing imput. :-)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Oh yea, and thanks everyone for all the help so far! Love this forum and everyone in it! :-)

[SeanH]

Personally I traded my 17-40 to get the 10-22 and would do it again. Don't let the "L" thing worry you, that 10-22 is WITHOUT A DOUBT just as sharp as the 17-40. Just depends on what yopu are looking for, yes the 10-22 ie VERY WIDE. But that's what I love about it. At the 22mm mark it's really a 35mm which is a very usable focal lenght for large group photo's, and at the 10mm you would get some cars shots that would blow you mind. This lens just opens up a whole new world to shoot from the second you put it on!! Don't get me wrong I still really liked the 17-40 but when you consider is a 27-64 (w/ 1.6 factor) it's really nothing that great.......comapred to (again 1.6) a 16-35.

Here's a gallery I shot within a hour of owning my 10-22.

http://www.pbase.com/blue622/photos

.....also if your looking though my other gallery's the one from Maui has a ton of shot's with that lens also.

[Toogy]

How about this for convincing evidence?

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/image/41846994.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/image/41778435.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/image/41742853.jpg

Just a few examples of my 10-22mm :)

[kawter2]

don't get the 10-22mm!!!! lolol ( i love L snobs )

http://www.ericcotter.com/blog/images/bird_hunter.jpg

[rent]

toogy: wow! now i want one too! :p very nice shots, i especially like #3.

kawter: love this one! the angle, elements and composition all just come together in this shot! how did you take this photo? your camera must be very close to the ground? did you get all wet with all the water?

-alex

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

WOAH! GREAT SHOTS! Omg, now you've sold me on the 10-22! AW!!! So hard!!! Wish I could just buy them both today and be done with it. Only have cash for one though.... could have both in time.... grrrrrr.....

Sean, great shots! First hour with the lens? Amazing!

Toogy, Amazing!!! you've got to tell me how you got such great colors on the sunsets! Been trying something similar with my 50mm but the colors always come out pitiful. I shoot AWB though.... is that the problem?

and Kawter, can't wait to hear how you got that shot! :-) Jaw dropping!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hm, just a thought, def need a walk around lens, but def need a wide angle. 17-40L covers that. The practical choice. The 10-22 would be more of a splurge to me. A fun toy.

So, I'll buy the 17-40, take some great shots, shoot some events, use it to make money, and then buy the 10-22. :-) Then I'll use both the lenses once again to make more money, sell the 17-40L and use the cash to pay for a 24-70L. :-) It'll take a while of course, but it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Agreed? :-)

[Toogy]

WOAH! GREAT SHOTS! Omg, now you've sold me on the 10-22! AW!!! So hard!!! Wish I could just buy them both today and be done with it. Only have cash for one though.... could have both in time.... grrrrrr.....

Sean, great shots! First hour with the lens? Amazing!

Toogy, Amazing!!! you've got to tell me how you got such great colors on the sunsets! Been trying something similar with my 50mm but the colors always come out pitiful. I shoot AWB though.... is that the problem?

and Kawter, can't wait to hear how you got that shot! :-) Jaw dropping!

Shooting raw helps alot with the sunsets, can adjust the WB to get it just right.

I think your plan sounds like a good one, BUT, I will add another option. Not sure if you only plan on using Canon lens, but you could do what I did, get the Tamron 28-75 as the walk around and the 10-22 as the wide fun lens.
I have no problems with the images my Tamron gives me, see below, shot wide open at F2.8 at ISO1600 to boot! :)

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/image/40858313.jpg

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Toogy, thanks for the tip with the sunsets. I'll try em RAW

And I did give the tamron canon combo some good thought, but I can't find a tamron anywhere! None on bhphoto, none at ritzcamera. Pretty much all the places I know and trust don't have one. I wanna get my hands on it but can't..:cry: Seems like a good lens though.... and not too expensive! :)

Problem is, don't have the cash right now to buy both at once which is what I would want and need to do. And also I'm worried about the resale value of the tamron. L glass def sells better. Less loss when I upgrade to the canon 24-70L.

[kawter2]

THANKS GUYS!! Yea It was one of those moments..... Opportunity meets preparation!! (definition of luck IMO)

any way, I use this lens a LOT with out looking thorough the viewfinder... just let the Cam pick the focus point and hope the DOF is wide enough (usually it is with this lens being sooooo wide) any way, I feel I get WAAAYY more keepers using this method, it gets the lens where the eye isn't used to being.


re: the water, it was barely coating the ground, so it didn't really splash to my recollection.. the kid actually got in trouble by his mom for "messing up the man's photo" At that moment I knew i had something so I told her not to worry. ;)

if you do get this lens you have to work around it's sweet spot.. IT IS VERY NOTICABLE!!! I ONLY shoot it @ 10mm (just because I don't rally need anything but the 10) and for sharpness sake ONLY ONLY ONLY shoot 3.5 or between 5.6-8.0

[Sydor25]

@10mm:

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Boston_4_21_05-486.jpg



Not the most creative, but I happen to have shots from the same place at different focal lengths:


@17mm:

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Boston_4_21_05-566.jpg




@22mm:

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Boston_4_21_05-569.jpg




@10mm

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Boston_4_21_05-572.jpg



The 10-22mm was my favorite walk-around lens when I was visiting Boston.

[Rob612]

The 10-22mm was my favorite walk-around lens when I was visiting Boston.

I fully agree with that. Not yet on vaction with the 10-22 but a bunch of years ago, whan I was using film, I used to leave for vacations with either a 16 or a 19 only. I never had to complain with the results. Nowadays things are different and I'm into other type of pics, so I have a reasonable range of lenses available. But still If I'll go for a quick walkaround downton, I'll get the 10-22 :D

[I Simonius]

Hello everyone, within the month I hope to purchase a wide angle lens, and yesterday I visited my local ritzcamera to try a few out. I looked at the 10-22 and the 17-40L. The 17-40L was AMAZING! I loved the feel, look, and pictures it took. I sort of want a walk around lens, and the 40mm on that lens seems like a decent range accompanied by my 50 f/1.8.

I was in love with the thing, ready to purchase it, when all of a sudden I saw a 10-22 sitting on the shelf. Being the curious kinda guy I am I just had to give it a try. Sure enough, it was INCREDIBLE! So wide! My jaw dropped, and now I'm hooked on that lens as well.

So now I have to make a choice, 17-40L or 10-22.... can't have both, can afford either one, just not sure if the 10-22 is toooooo wide. I want to use the lens to shoot cars, architecture like local homes and stuff, events (big group shots) and landscapes. I'd like to get artistic with some of my shots though. 10-22 is better for that isn't it? Will the 17-40L surfice? I liked the fixed f/4 apeture on the 17-40L. Hate the f/3.5 to f/4.5 on the 10-22. It just annoys me....

Gaaahhhhh, can't choose! Help! From your experiences with these lenses, what would you recommend?!?!?! Thanks!

I too agonised over this choice.
The first thing I had to get clear in my head is that on a 1.6 sensor (20D&350) the 17-40 is a 27 - 64 lens. The 10-22 is a 16 -35lens.
There are loads of reviews of these lenses and what they biol down to is that the QUALITY of the 17-40 is better and more consistant, the 10-22 has has questionable QC (quality control). Unless you NEED the 10-17 range I would give it a miss and go for the 17-40.

To look at it another way the 10-22 lens in practice gives you the equivalent option of a 16mm lens. Super wide. The difference in the range between that and the 27mm can be accounted for by taking a few steps forward or back. DO you need a 16mm lens ? YES you immediately answer! :D Really? Really? When you enlarge a shot form the centre it is so tiny it won't look sharp. No lens that wide is pin sharp. Once you have taken a dozen shots of super wide you may find you're struggling to find a use for it.

So decide what you're going to use it for then you will know which lens you need.

Me? I'm going for the 17-40, the three 10-22s I tried in the shop were flimsy construction and two didn't focus properly at 10mm. The 17-40 was spot on every time. Having said all the above there are thjose very satisfied with their 10-22s
:evil:

[I Simonius]

don't get the 10-22mm!!!! lolol ( i love L snobs )

http://www.ericcotter.com/blog/images/bird_hunter.jpg

I love that shot
The test of a brilliant shot to me is that I remember it. This one stayed in my head after the first time I saw it. I rate it highly!

[I Simonius]

Hm, just a thought, def need a walk around lens, but def need a wide angle. 17-40L covers that. The practical choice. The 10-22 would be more of a splurge to me. A fun toy.

So, I'll buy the 17-40, take some great shots, shoot some events, use it to make money, and then buy the 10-22. :-) Then I'll use both the lenses once again to make more money, sell the 17-40L and use the cash to pay for a 24-70L. :-) It'll take a while of course, but it sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Agreed? :-)

great idea as long as you have strong shoulders - that 24-70 is a monster!
A Sharp monster though!

[I Simonius]

THANKS GUYS!! Yea It was one of those moments..... Opportunity meets preparation!! (definition of luck IMO)

any way, I use this lens a LOT with out looking thorough the viewfinder... just let the Cam pick the focus point and hope the DOF is wide enough (usually it is with this lens being sooooo wide) any way, I feel I get WAAAYY more keepers using this method, it gets the lens where the eye isn't used to being.


re: the water, it was barely coating the ground, so it didn't really splash to my recollection.. the kid actually got in trouble by his mom for "messing up the man's photo" At that moment I knew i had something so I told her not to worry. ;)

if you do get this lens you have to work around it's sweet spot.. IT IS VERY NOTICABLE!!! I ONLY shoot it @ 10mm (just because I don't rally need anything but the 10) and for sharpness sake ONLY ONLY ONLY shoot 3.5 or between 5.6-8.0

This is really interesting, please tell me more about this. I tried this lens but wasn't impressed due to lack of sharpness but you've got it cracked!
OK -- so it's good at 10mm?
at 3.5 AND 5.6 - 8.0 ( and NOT at other FLs or apertures?)
If I know this is the way to use it and it produces shots like yours (quality wise) I may get it.

[lancea]

Well, you did ask ;) I have the 17-40 and I think you should get the 10-22 (and get one for me too). You'll be able to take shots that have the "wow factor", whereas the 17-40 is kind of utilitarian. Not very wide. Not very long. But a very good solid lens.

One thought - could you possibly also afford the kit lens, or a prime that'll give you something either slightly wide or 50mm equivalent? Without that, I see you'll have quite a big jump from the 10-22 to your 50.

[kawter2]

This is really interesting, please tell me more about this. I tried this lens but wasn't impressed due to lack of sharpness but you've got it cracked!
OK -- so it's good at 10mm?
at 3.5 AND 5.6 - 8.0 ( and NOT at other FLs or apertures?)
If I know this is the way to use it and it produces shots like yours (quality wise) I may get it.


I actually debated sending the lens back the first couple days due to "sharpness". after reading this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml and paying close attention to this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-25/blur-table.jpg I have NEVER looked back!!!

I shot a few at random apertures and wasn't satisfied with the sharpness then my mind said "stop that thing down, it will get sharp.. then I was REALLY not satisfied. That said, I relied on the information in the DXO graph and read a few articles about ultra wide angles and how they handle different apertures.... Now you couldn't pry it out of my hands..

DXO graph (Courtesy luminous-landscape.com)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-25/blur-table.jpg

[I Simonius]

snip>>>I actually debated sending the lens back the first couple days due to "sharpness". after reading this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml and paying close attention to this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-25/blur-table.jpg I have NEVER looked back!!!

I shot a few at random aperture Now you couldn't pry it out of my hands..
snip>>



So basically it works OK at 3.5 and 5.6.-8.0 like you said!
and do you find it's oK at tthose apertures at all FL?
(Im think you said you only use it at 10mm- that's quite an expensive 10mm lens :p )

BTW I got a flash and 17-40 today - hooray!

[kawter2]

BTW I got a flash and 17-40 today - hooray!


Good luck!! that is a great lens..it is just IMO apples to oranges when comparing it to a 10-22 on a 20d.. but the big L does give the wow factor

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Is the 17-40 sharp at more of it's apetures though? Seems like the 10-22 has a very narrow working range with the f stops.

[kawter2]

my o' my we have created a generation of pixel peepers.. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING??? you are comparing a flipping 10mm!!! LENS 10MM 10MM 10MM 10MM .. and i bet the 50mm1.8 is sharper too so NO ONE go out and get a 10mm lens cause a 50mm is sharper and it is only $70

Canon must love how the new generation can only take "good" shots if it is sharp to the nanopixel @ 100% in Photo Shop.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hahahaha, calm down kawter, I'm simply making sure I cover all the bases. The sharpness of a lens isn't all that matters to me, and I understand the value of a 10mm lens. :-) But what matters is not the specs of the lens, but what lens is right for me. Which, I've decided that!!!!!!

I DID IT! I BOUGHT THE 17-40L! :-) :-)

Should arrive this friday and I can't wait!! Hopefully the weather will be nice so I can get some decent first shots. It's been raining the last two weeks straight. :-(

Thanks everyone for your help! After I pay off all my debts next up is the 10-22!!

[ddelallata]

Congrats on your new lens purchase! Mine arrives on Monday. Happy Shooting to us both :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Awesome! Hope to see some pics from yours! :-)

[DigiDi]

I got the 17-40 lens when it first came out and I just love it. It takes beautiful photos with my 10D. I know you will enjoy it! Diane

[I Simonius]

my o' my we have created a generation of pixel peepers.. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING??? you are comparing a flipping 10mm!!! LENS 10MM 10MM 10MM 10MM .. and i bet the 50mm1.8 is sharper too so NO ONE go out and get a 10mm lens cause a 50mm is sharper and it is only $70

Canon must love how the new generation can only take "good" shots if it is sharp to the nanopixel @ 100% in Photo Shop.

The point I, personally, was making was that there was something wrong with both the 10-22s I tried. I got the 17-40 not in preference to the 10-22 on pixel count but on Quaility control issues. I trust the QC of the 17-40. I asked the manager os my shop whether it was worth me trying another 10-22 and he said not to bother, he'd had so many back it wasn't worth it.

In this case I would rather `Canon just made a 10mm prime for the 1,6s that was an'L' for no reason that the QC would be there.

They have obviously tried hard with the 10-22 but I think it is too big a compromise.
I would happily try as many as it took to get one that worked.I may even do that yet.
I don't expect nanosharpness but I do expect it to at least look in focus

Hmmm those flowers smell nice, I think I'll take pics and RELAX!

[csnudelman]

While there is a good bit of difference in cost between the 16-35L and the 17-40L. And while there may not be enough difference the between the 16mm and 17mm view for most anyone. There may be enough difference in the lenses' ability to use Canon's fastest and most percise AF mode for some.;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

If only I had the cash for the 16-35. :-)

[kawter2]

If only I had the cash for the 16-35. :-)

I wish canon made a 17-55 2.8 L like the Nikor :D

[sodakred]

What the heck...I'll weigh in. I bought the 10-22 based on the strength of Kawter's pigeon shot. Yes...I just couldn't get it out of my head. It's my favorite lens next to my 70-200 2.8L. Maybe I just like the extremes because I always find myself at 200mm for close crop of action, candids or detail and the 10-22 is an absolute kick to unlock the creative juices. Just walk right up to a building and BANG capture the whole thing. I've also taken some really nice kid fun portraits with it too.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Aw, yea, the 10-22 seems so fantastic! I'm sure the creative edge it provides is breath taking when your looking through that view finder. Oh well, 10-22 is next on my list. For now I'm going to love and enjoy my 17-40L. :-) (Which'll hopefully be in by tomorrow)

It'd be rrrlllyyy nice if there was a 10-70mm f/2.8. :-) I'd buy that in a heart beat!

[csnudelman]

If only I had the cash for the 16-35. :-)

DITO HERE!;)

[kwang0429]

I have both, but ever since I got the 10-22 I stopped using 17-40...

[csnudelman]

I'm trying, if possiable, to stay with f2.8 or faster to take advantage of the 20D's very best in AFing. I have a 24-70L (which is on my camera 85% of the time) and a 135L. I plan to get (someday) a 1.4X that would give me a 196mm f/2.5 as well. I would like something in the 17ish focal length someday, but would want to stick with f/2.8 or faster for the above reason. I also hope to get a macro but I do believe half life size will be close enough for the shots I take. So, I'm thinking 50mm macro to save money or 100mm macro to fill a not so needed gap. :confused:

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Sounds like a good plan csnudelman! I really want to go with all f/2.8 glass or faster as well, but I usually shoot in the f/4 range anyway, and can't afford the considerably higher costs of f/2.8 lenses right now.

I had the 100mm f/2.8 macro for a few days and it was fantastic! Best macro lens other than the 180mm f/3.5L. I returned it though because I bought it from Ritz for $600.00 and then learned I had been totally ripped off. It's $450.00 after rebates on bhphoto. Figure sometime either this year or next I'll buy one again. It made a great walk around lens!

My plan right now is to fully pay off all that I have bought, and then purchase that 10-22 to go with my 17-40L. After I pay off the 10-22 I'm going to sell the 17-40L and use the cash to get a 24-70 f/2.8L. :-) Then I'll probably upgrade my 70-200 f/4L to a f/2.8L IS. Either that or a 100-400L. Gonna take me a while, but that's the fun of it. Haven't made up my mind yet.

I love how there's always something to look forward too and work for with this hobby! :-)

[csnudelman]

I almost always shoot at f/8-f/11 and ISO 50 or 100 (depending on which camera I use). Just want f/2.8 or faster for the quickest most accurate AF.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

I think Sigma 12-24 is a good alternative.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Really? That's like, $709.00 isn't it? It's also f/4.5-5.6 I think..... so, for $94.00 more you can get the full 10mm, a whole extra f stop at f/3.5-4.5 and it's canon. Supposively comparible to L quality. Doesn't seem like a good deal to me. If it was $500.00, then maybe.

[csnudelman]

I think Sigma 12-24 is a good alternative.

I can think of several reasons for why I shy away from 3rd party lenses. Lord knows I have owned many fine ones 10-20-30 years ago but that was before AF (when lenses didn't have motors and switches).

[kawter2]

I think Sigma 12-24 is a good alternative.

I'd get the tokina WAAAYY before the Sigma

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I'd have to agree, although in reality I wouldn't buy either. Big fan of canon.

[gerolamo]

Here's my 2C about what to choose: 10-22mm or 17-40L?

I own 10-22mm, and I compared it with 17-40L in store.

The lens has soft edges at 10mm, that's for sure, but it's definitely usable.
At 17 mm and above it's as sharp as the 17-40L, if not better.
So by buying a 17-40 you're not buying a sharper lens. If you can cover the 22-40mm gap with another good lens, go for the wide angle.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yup, I know, I went with the 17-40L because I couldn't cover that gap. Tried getting my hands on a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 but couldn't find one in stock, and didn't really have the cash to buy that an the 10-22 anyway.

[csnudelman]

Yup, I know, I went with the 17-40L because I couldn't cover that gap. Tried getting my hands on a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 but couldn't find one in stock, and didn't really have the cash to buy that an the 10-22 anyway.

Why were you trying to find the Tamron when two posts back you said you wouldn't have one? Just wondering!:confused:

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Did I really say that? Huh, well, I prefer to buy all canon lenses, but if there's no other alternative I'll go with a Tamron or something. There's really no affordable lens in that range in canon.

[I Simonius]

don't get the 10-22mm!!!! lolol ( i love L snobs )

snip

you should sell that shot to Canon for advertising their 10-22!

[kawter2]

you should sell that shot to Canon for advertising their 10-22!


HEHE... thanks~!!! If i knew how or where to start... I would..


If anyone has sugestions, plese feel free to let me know

[I Simonius]

HEHE... thanks~!!! If i knew how or where to start... I would..


If anyone has sugestions, plese feel free to let me know

mebbe ask the pros in the pros section?

[blue_max]

Here's my 2C about what to choose: 10-22mm or 17-40L?

I own 10-22mm, and I compared it with 17-40L in store.

The lens has soft edges at 10mm, that's for sure, but it's definitely usable.
At 17 mm and above it's as sharp as the 17-40L, if not better.
So by buying a 17-40 you're not buying a sharper lens. If you can cover the 22-40mm gap with another good lens, go for the wide angle.

You took a couple of shots in the store and make such a sweeping statement!

At a stroke, you dismiss all the people who bought the 17-40 as blind or...

Whilst I would not be so disrespectful to the excellent photographers on this site, I wouldn't be so sure of myself, that it wasn't operator error under the gaze of the salesman. There are more areas of grey on lenses than black and white.

Hope you take have a chance to appreciate the quality of the 17-40 some time. Maybe when you have more time to properly evaluate the lens.

Graham

[csnudelman]

blue_max, I guess you really like the 17-40L. I wanted to get that lens but was going to bit the bullet and save for the 16-35L. This for the same reason I got the 135L instead of the 70-200L f/4-to get the best in the 20D's AF mode. I really don't want to spend the money the 16-35L costs and would reconsider the 17-40L if I can find enough good reports about it. Then too, the wider focal legnths have greater DOF and perhaps the AF thing is not such an issue with them. What you think? Oh, and I don't want to get into a name calling rig-a-ma-row with anyone but please don't anyone suggest 3rd party lenses, I just don't use them.

[blue_max]

blue_max, I guess you really like the 17-40L. I wanted to get that lens but was going to bit the bullet and save for the 16-35L. This for the same reason I got the 135L instead of the 70-200L f/4-to get the best in the 20D's AF mode. I really don't want to spend the money the 16-35L costs and would reconsider the 17-40L if I can find enough good reports about it. Then too, the wider focal legnths have greater DOF and perhaps the AF thing is not such an issue with them. What you think? Oh, and I don't want to get into a name calling rig-a-ma-row with anyone but please don't anyone suggest 3rd party lenses, I just don't use them.

My very personal view (not difinitive in any way),
I wanted a wide angle lens, but didn't use one much in the past. I would have liked a prime, but none stood out as universally admired at reasonable cost. I bought the 135L prime and always use it instead of the 70-200 which rarely goes on the body now.
I think the 17-40 and 70-200f4 lenses are fantastic value and wouldn't consider third party either (it's my view remember!).
Back to the 17-40. It's a fine lens, but exposure has been a problem for me as I am used to a telephoto (too much contrast in the scene). Also where to focus keeps me busy too. These are operator error and not lens issues.
The only problem is the f4 to my mind. This is fine if you are shooting landscapes. However, 2,8 is not the be all and end all either. I don't like to use (or own) a flash gun, so less is more, so to speak.
Quality wise, it fits right in with the rest of my lenses (see signature). I don't yearn for the 16-35. If I was a 'wide shooter' I might focus more closely on the wide end. I don't find myself using the zoom facility too much either –*it's 17 or nothing for me. Again, it's just me, so a prime would probably do (one of the 1.8's would be great).
Wide angle shooting is an art in itself and not like any other range.
If you are just starting out in wide angle (like me) then I would recommend buying second hand (like me). I don't expect it to have cost me much if I change my mind, but might buy a prime if one came up for sensible money.
To sum up –*A very fine lens that is upfront about it's f stop. A good and useful range. I am very happy with the quality it produces (compared to my other lenses). It will work well in the right hands and be poor in the wrong – more so than telephoto lenses. I find it focusses quickly and accurately and remarkably close-up (a matter of inches).
It works for me.

Graham

[csnudelman]

Thanks for your time and reply. Before converting to to digital I used 35mm and only primes for many, many years. My wide lens was 28mm. I didn't much use it staying mostly with 50mm, 90mm and somewhat a 200mm. I don't think I used my 500mm often enough to "keep it warm". I have the 24-70L and 135L along with the kit lens (18-55mm) and would like a wide prime along the lines of 16mm or 17mm. I looked for a good used Canon but it seems there is no such animal in the 'EF' mount.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, I know I love my 17-40L. It's absolutely fantastic! Even if I had the money, I don't think I would have gone for the 16-35mm f/2.8L because on a wide angle lens the f/2.8 just doesn't really matter to me. I don't need it to AF super fast.... most of the time I wont be shooting sports with it unless I decide to visit a local skate park. Indoor use? Meh, not a problem for me either. It's a wide angle so it doesn't require very fast shutter speeds at all. I just set it at 17mm with a 1/30th shutter and get sharp images. It's amazing!!!! Plus, the lens is just incredibly sharp, light, attractive, and fun to use. That and more than wide enough for my tastes. :-) 10mm just seemed too wide for my likings.... currently I don't think I'd ever like it. That and I don't like lenses that don't have fixed apeture.

So, I guess the only lens I would ever get with a f/2.8 would be a telephoto that I wanted to use for sports photography and stuff. Like, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I could justify dropping the extra $$ on that lens for it's f/2.8, anddddd it's 3rd gen IS of course. :-)

[kawter2]

I don't think ANYONE is saying the 17-40 is a bad lens.. If I get a WA zoom I'm getting it to use its WA capabilites.. IMO comparing the 10-22 to the 17-40 is ODD 10mm compared to17?? almost 2x's the focal length..

To compare it the focal length is like comparing the 85MM prime to a lens that is LONGER than the 135mm (it would have to be 144mm)

[csnudelman]

NO ONE did say it is a bad lens, ya got one right. Now, about comparing the 85mm prime to this 144mm........

[kawter2]

NO ONE did say it is a bad lens, ya got one right. Now, about comparing the 85mm prime to this 144mm........


Yes it is the same exact ratio 10mm/17mm = 85mm/144mm

[I Simonius]

Hello everyone, within the month I hope to purchase a wide angle lens, and yesterday I visited my local ritzcamera to try a few out. I looked at the 10-22 and the 17-40L. The 17-40L was AMAZING! I loved the feel, look, and pictures it took. I sort of want a walk around lens, and the 40mm on that lens seems like a decent range accompanied by my 50 f/1.8.

I was in love with the thing, ready to purchase it, when all of a sudden I saw a 10-22 sitting on the shelf. Being the curious kinda guy I am I just had to give it a try. Sure enough, it was INCREDIBLE! So wide! My jaw dropped, and now I'm hooked on that lens as well.

So now I have to make a choice, 17-40L or 10-22.... can't have both, can afford either one, just not sure if the 10-22 is toooooo wide. I want to use the lens to shoot cars, architecture like local homes and stuff, events (big group shots) and landscapes. I'd like to get artistic with some of my shots though. 10-22 is better for that isn't it? Will the 17-40L surfice? I liked the fixed f/4 apeture on the 17-40L. Hate the f/3.5 to f/4.5 on the 10-22. It just annoys me....

Gaaahhhhh, can't choose! Help! From your experiences with these lenses, what would you recommend?!?!?! Thanks!

Bought both kept one
One of them seemd a flimsy build, was very OOF at one end and despite trying three in total decided they could keep it. Others have raved about it but my experience was the the 10-22 was NOT for me

The 17-40 however gave me a smile from the first shots - so that's the one to go for IMO

[tim]

This may've already been mentioned, but the Sigma 10-22 F4-5.6 EX is coming out before too long, it could be interesting, even if it is variable aperture and a bit slow. It's priced at $489 or so from B&H.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Sigma 10-22?!?! Huh, I haven't heard about that!! How soon is soon? Months? That'd be something to look into due to it's price... Although it would be nice if it came out at $400.00 instead of $489.00ish.

[kawter2]

HEHE... thanks~!!! If i knew how or where to start... I would..


If anyone has sugestions, plese feel free to let me know



Have a call in to Canon's Customer R elations/ Market Dept

never know ;)

[tim]

Sigma 10-20 I think it is, sorry. Check B&H.

[blue_max]

hmmm... To make such a comment of my post is just rude.
nuff said.

You are quite right, I do apologise unreservedly. It was your personal opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it. I was too quick out of the stalls.

Sorry for any offence.

Graham

[gerolamo]

Peace man,

Personal opinions are what makes this site great.
Some know lots more that others, I try to contribute, as little as I know :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Tim, I checked it out at bhphoto.com, and it seems sweet! Can't wait for it to come out. I'm curious what it looks like. :-)

[Skippy29]

Bump.
Just hate to see a great thread die, lol.

My vote: 10-22, but what do I know? I mean just look at the equipment I use in my sig. No $4000 bodies, and only one "L" lens....PFFFT!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Haha yea. A $4000 body would be nice. :) I still think I'd take my 20D over a 1d MkII though. I like my 1.6x crop factor. Only things I'd change is a built in vertical grip and 100% view finder. Mmmm, yummy.

But anyway, omg, have any of you tried using your reversed wide angle lenses to do macro? It's crazy! I used my 17-40L, set it at 17mm, turned it around held it to my 20d and I was amazed! Waaayyyyyy more magnification than 1:1. No control of DOF though.:cry:

[ddelallata]

Haha yea. A $4000 body would be nice. :) I still think I'd take my 20D over a 1d MkII though. I like my 1.6x crop factor. Only things I'd change is a built in vertical grip and 100% view finder. Mmmm, yummy.

But anyway, omg, have any of you tried using your reversed wide angle lenses to do macro? It's crazy! I used my 17-40L, set it at 17mm, turned it around held it to my 20d and I was amazed! Waaayyyyyy more magnification than 1:1. No control of DOF though.:cry:


Are you saying that you hand held the lens in front of the camera?? I'd be afraid of junk getting into the lens.

[I Simonius]

Are you saying that you hand held the lens in front of the camera?? I'd be afraid of junk getting into the lens.

ME TOO!
Scream..whimper... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I was actually more afraid of junk getting into my camera and onto the sensor, but it was worth the fun experience. :-) I just made sure I cleaned it all really well afterwards.

The 17-40L seems to make a pretty decent macro (flower) lens because of it's close focusing distance. I think if I were to throw on an extention tube or two this would be a kick @$$ lens to take pics of flowers with. :-)

[ddelallata]

The 17-40L seems to make a pretty decent macro (flower) lens because of it's close focusing distance. I think if I were to throw on an extention tube or two this would be a kick @$$ lens to take pics of flowers with. :-)

I just bought a used Canon EF 12 extension tube on ebay for my 17-40 (65 US dlls). Focusing distance has been reduce from a few millimeters to a few inches. I'll try to post some pics when I get a chance. Its very likely that I'll sell the extension tube though...I'm not very thrilled about this working distance. If anyone wants it for 60 dlls I'll let it go.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Do you mean focusing distance has been reduced from a few inches to a few millimeters? I think that's what you meant to say...

It's too bad the EF 12 extention tube isn't working out for you. I'm tempted to take it off your hands, but meh, I'm already over extended financially. :-( The 12 isn't getting you close enough though? Or too close?

[I Simonius]

I was actually more afraid of junk getting into my camera and onto the sensor, but it was worth the fun experience. :-) I just made sure I cleaned it all really well afterwards.

The 17-40L seems to make a pretty decent macro (flower) lens because of it's close focusing distance. I think if I were to throw on an extention tube or two this would be a kick @$$ lens to take pics of flowers with. :-)

It ALREADY focusses down to about a fingers width, how close do you get with it reversed? I should think the chnaces of getting pollen on the internal elephant are quite high

I would think a 50 or 100 would give you a better (safer) reveresed macro option

[I Simonius]

Hello everyone, within the month I hope to purchase a wide angle lens, and yesterday I visited my local ritzcamera to try a few out. I looked at the 10-22 and the 17-40L. The 17-40L was AMAZING! I loved the feel, look, and pictures it took. I sort of want a walk around lens, and the 40mm on that lens seems like a decent range accompanied by my 50 f/1.8.

I was in love with the thing, ready to purchase it, when all of a sudden I saw a 10-22 sitting on the shelf. Being the curious kinda guy I am I just had to give it a try. Sure enough, it was INCREDIBLE! So wide! My jaw dropped, and now I'm hooked on that lens as well.

So now I have to make a choice, 17-40L or 10-22.... can't have both, can afford either one, just not sure if the 10-22 is toooooo wide. I want to use the lens to shoot cars, architecture like local homes and stuff, events (big group shots) and landscapes. I'd like to get artistic with some of my shots though. 10-22 is better for that isn't it? Will the 17-40L surfice? I liked the fixed f/4 apeture on the 17-40L. Hate the f/3.5 to f/4.5 on the 10-22. It just annoys me....

Gaaahhhhh, can't choose! Help! From your experiences with these lenses, what would you recommend?!?!?! Thanks!

So what have you decided? ;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Fingers width? Mine focused to about 6 inches. :( backwards it's about one inch. I tried my 50mm backwards, but the magnification is nothing even close to what the 17mm can do.

But hm, I think I went with the 17-40L. Can't quite remember though, I think I need to go take some amazing pics to refresh my memory.:cool:

[booggerg]

This is stupid... why would an EF-S lens(one that is designed for 1.6x sensors) still have the multiplier effect attached to it? You'd think a 10mm FOV from this lens on a 1.6x sensor is equivalent to the field of view from an EF 10mm lens on full frame cameras

[csnudelman]

This is stupid... why would an EF-S lens(one that is designed for 1.6x sensors) still have the multiplier effect attached to it? You'd think a 10mm FOV from this lens on a 1.6x sensor is equivalent to the field of view from an EF 10mm lens on full frame cameras

Hah? Wanta think what you said over again?

[glenhead]

This is stupid... why would an EF-S lens(one that is designed for 1.6x sensors) still have the multiplier effect attached to it? You'd think a 10mm FOV from this lens on a 1.6x sensor is equivalent to the field of view from an EF 10mm lens on full frame cameras

Unfortunately, the focal length of the lens has nothing to do with the size of the photographic medium, it only defines the focal point of the lens. When you use a smaller medium (a digital chip, in this instance) you're doing nothing more than starting with a cropped picture. If you could put a 50mm EOS lens on a medium-format camera, it would give the field of view equivalent to a 25mm lens that's built for the camera. The EF-S lenses just move the lenses closer to the medium - the lenses' inherent focal length stays the same.

That said, I do wish the manufacturers would come up with a way to express the equivalencies on the box, for example (or in the name of the lens, or something) - but then the orangutang factor kicks in. If you put more numbers on the box, it's only going to confuse the Great Unwashed Masses, despite the fact that it'd be nice for those of us who have at least a partial clue (like me - major emphasis on "partial"!)

I have to go let my brain cool down now...

[booggerg]

so they should actually label this EF-S 10-22 as 16-35mm..

I need to brush up on my lens technology skills. Or learn some for that matter!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Nah, listing it as a 16-35mm lens would be misleading. It's not unreasonable for them to expect that someone who is dropping $800.00 on a lens is knowledgable enough about the 1.6x crop factor on their camera, and do the math to come to the conclusion that it's a 16-35mm effective lens.

[ddelallata]

Nah, listing it as a 16-35mm lens would be misleading. It's not unreasonable for them to expect that someone who is dropping $800.00 on a lens is knowledgable enough about the 1.6x crop factor on their camera, and do the math to come to the conclusion that it's a 16-35mm effective lens.

exactly. Newbies are usually the only ones that have trouble with this type of math. But they usually (not always the case) start off with the kit lenses and upgrade later. By that time they've figured out the math.

[blue_max]

so they should actually label this EF-S 10-22 as 16-35mm..

I need to brush up on my lens technology skills. Or learn some for that matter!

I suppose in reality the lens doesn't change – it's the body that changes it, so it should be printed on the body box if anywhere.

Graham

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I suppose in reality the lens doesn't change – it's the body that changes it, so it should be printed on the body box if anywhere.

Yea, that's what I was thinking, but that'd be pretty dumb.

I guess they could list it on the box of the 10-22, but only for the purposes of promoting their product. Like, "FIRST 16-35mm EFFECTIVE LENS ON 1.6X BODIES!"

Then again, that'd be stupid, and annoying to see on the front of every 10-22 box.

[MadMesh]

I just bought the 10-22... The 17-40 is great, I have owned it, Its simpilly just not a Wide angle on a 20D. The 10-22 on a 20D is a better comparison to a 17-40L on a 35mm Film Camera.

Im not planning on selling my 20D, or upgrading, so im ok with buying EF-S.

I love wide angle lenses, and this is pretty much my only option for a true 16mm wide after its been converted for a APC-C sensor. (10mm).

I have also been looking at Sigma 10-20, and Tokina, but i paied $710.18 shipped to my door for that 10-22. Any reasons to send it back and get a 10-20 Sigma?!?!?! IF i can save a buck or 2, id love to do it, as long as im not really killing optical performance. Since i would LIKE to sell my landscape and sunset photos

[drisley]

Thanks for your time and reply. Before converting to to digital I used 35mm and only primes for many, many years. My wide lens was 28mm. I didn't much use it staying mostly with 50mm, 90mm and somewhat a 200mm. I don't think I used my 500mm often enough to "keep it warm". I have the 24-70L and 135L along with the kit lens (18-55mm) and would like a wide prime along the lines of 16mm or 17mm. I looked for a good used Canon but it seems there is no such animal in the 'EF' mount.
Try the Tokina 17mm ATX Pro lens. Built like a tank, very good optics, and great price!
Also, includes a better warranty than canon, and better lens case :)
I only sold mine to get the 16-35L.