10-22 or 17-40?

[Asmodeus]

Lenses are within $100 of each other. Tried both lenses from a local shop; they definitely excel at different things.

In addition to the lenses in my sig, I just picked up a Tamron 28-105 SP f2.8 pretty inexpensively on eBay, so I'm thinking the 10-22 might be a better fit for the collection. I'll probably be putting the Tamron 18-200 up for auction on eBay and buying a Canon 70-200.

Opinions? Suggestions? Comments?

[BlueTit]

Hi

here is loads on here about both, do some search and see these threads too:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78253

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77562

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77293


Good luck with your choice.

[xstrio]

if i were you, i`d get the 10-22, then your only missing 5mm from 23-27mm AND YOU`LL HAVE A REALLLY NICE WIDE ANGLE LENS

[Skippy29]

One for sale in the marketplace : )

[djcoffey]

From what I've read, the 17mm + the crop factor takes you up into the 28mm range. Canon came up with the 10-22 mm to provide wide angle coverage to the 20D, Digital Rebel line.

Getting mine soon, look forward to playing with it.

[Asmodeus]

Bought the 10-22. So far, I like it a lot ;)

[Rob612]

Bought the 10-22. So far, I like it a lot ;)

Good choice. I love mine !

[blinking8s]

Ive seen very mixed results with the 10-22, one friend went through three before he was happy, another returned his first one, mostly focus issues, one just fell apart compeltely from the inside...

but those that get the good ones, great great great great great shots...but like most WA lenses i have used, i assume its a very picky lens with little room for error

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I had trouble making the same decision a week or so back. I decided to go with the 17-40L because I tried both of them out and the 10-22 was just way to wide for my likings. 17mm to me is rly WIDE! I'm very pleased with it. That and I wanted it to be a walk around lens type thing so the 40mm is decent for that. That and I like the 17-40L's fixed apeture.

There is an 11mm difference between the 17-40L and your tamron so, I think it would work well with it. 11mm is a lot in the wide angle world, and anyway, there would be a 6mm gap if you bought the 10-22mm...... that could be a pain at times. Changing lenses isn't fun for the most part.

[JulianL]

I had trouble making the same decision a week or so back. I decided to go with the 17-40L because I tried both of them out and the 10-22 was just way to wide for my likings. 17mm to me is rly WIDE! I'm very pleased with it. That and I wanted it to be a walk around lens type thing so the 40mm is decent for that. That and I like the 17-40L's fixed apeture.

There is an 11mm difference between the 17-40L and your tamron so, I think it would work well with it. 11mm is a lot in the wide angle world, and anyway, there would be a 6mm gap if you bought the 10-22mm...... that could be a pain at times. Changing lenses isn't fun for the most part.

17-40L is a great walk around lens on a 1.6x crop factor digital camera. I put mine on my film camera today and was blown away by the wide angle view though. You don't get that at all on the digital camera. If wide angle is what you want then I'd get the 10-22. If you want a great walk around lens with a usable zoom for people/outdoor pics and L series quality get the 17-40.

[Dante King]

17-40L is a great walk around lens on a 1.6x crop factor digital camera. I put mine on my film camera today and was blown away by the wide angle view though. You don't get that at all on the digital camera. If wide angle is what you want then I'd get the 10-22. If you want a great walk around lens with a usable zoom for people/outdoor pics and L series quality get the 17-40.

Exactly why I sold my 10-22 and got a 16-35. 10-22 was to wide for me and I have UGLY feet and I got tired of cropping them out of every shot.