View Full Version : 10-22 vs 17-40L @ 17mm Performance Test
MadMesh
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 15:06
I read a lot that the 10-22 is built to L standards as far as optics go. Its supposed to be super sharp and engineered for a 1.6 crop.
Instead of having 2 lenses, basically an L lens to cover ranges from 17+...
I just wanted to see how well the 10-22 will stack up to the 17-40 @ 17mm.
Looking for sharpness, color, and image quality. Is it really L glass quality?
Also, do you get much distortion at 17mm on the 10-22, because at 10mm, that lens it very wide, and gets really distorted at the corners... not that im complaining, if it does the same thing at 17mm, then i have no problem buying a 17-40L, to use with my 10-22.
I do landscape, interior photography, and long exposure light shots.
weasel
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 15:14
If you are interested in 17mm focal legnth (as I am) you may wish to look at Tokina's 17mm.
MadMesh
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 15:18
no, i want the 10-22, but im trying to justify the quality of the 10-22 at 17mm+
If the 10-22 performs very similar to the 17-40 in the 17m+ range, then there is no resaon for me to buy a 17-40L, i rather go out and buy a 24-70L.... Since i also do a lot of tripod long exposure shots at 17 70 mm range too.
CorruptedPhotographer
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 15:18
this will appear in bold
this will appear in italics
this will appear in underlines form
this will be red
this is to attach a link but hide it in text (looks cool and less cluterred) (http://www.something.something.com)
( was teaching my sister , dont mean to intrude)
weasel
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 15:43
i rather go out and buy a 24-70L....
Regardless of everything else do get the 24-70L if you can afford it. It is a great piece of glass.
MadMesh
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 15:51
Im will sooner or later =) Im just trying to find out if my 10-22 can replace my 17-40L for wide range. Per my original questions post.
scr7b
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 16:15
I have both (I'm about to sell the 17-40), and I would say the 10-22 is certainly equal to the 17-40 in the 17mm+ range. It's a very sharp lens.
MadMesh
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 16:18
thats all i wanted to know. I used the 17-40 for a while, but it never really have me that WIDE WIDE angle i was looking for. Since it covers the 17mm like the 17-40, I think im going to dump my 17-40L...
weasel
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 17:57
Give me a price and condition, I wanta 17-40L
MadMesh
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:24
I already sold it on ebay for more than i paid for it =) Thanks
She Rebel
25th of July 2005 (Mon), 18:30
Yeah, I'd keep the 10-22mm for sure. =)
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.