10-22 vs 17-40L

[Penance]

ARGHHH
Cant decide at all.

I was going for the 10-22, but i can get the 17-40L for £20 more.
I realise the difference in length, but what about quality?

Should i sacrifice the ultra wide for the L glass?

Is there much in it, someone stop my insanity.....

[Jon]

What else do you have? For starters, what camera body is this going on? What other lenses do you have, and what do you usually shoot? Do you have a jones for ultra-wide?

[m3elmo]

the 10-22 is on the ultrawide side. It's a good landscape lens and good for those group photos, otherwise it's not exactly an ideal "walk-around" lens. The 17-40L is a good lens, I would wish it could go lower than F4 however. The glass on both is very good. I personally would go for the 17-40L, but that's me because I would need something in that focal range.

[ddelallata]

I have the 17-40L and really love it, but the creative side of me made me order the 10-22 from Dell last week. God only knows when I'll recieve it :(

[cosworth]

10-22 is an EF-S. If it was an EF, I bet it would get the L designation.

EF-S won't ever get L designation. The 10-22 is L quality, I've shot through it.

If you want bling, buy the L. But you'll use the 10-22 more. It does have some severe distortion that unprocessed I do not like as much as the fisheye effect. I ended up going 15mm fishy and keeping the kit lens. I have some Scotsman in me.

Edit: If canon made a 10-40 L EF, in any size, weight, price or colour I'd buy it.

[Penance]

What else do you have? For starters, what camera body is this going on? What other lenses do you have, and what do you usually shoot? Do you have a jones for ultra-wide?

Ah yes, in my rush i forgot:o

Body is 300D
Other lenses - kit 18-55, 100-300USM, 50mm 1.8

I shoot anything from scenic/city (travel stuff) to aeroplanes and macro.

I do have a 'jones' (not heard that phrase before) for ultra wide, brought on from pics i have seen, but also willing to forgo it for a better lens.

If the 10-22 is L quality i will go for it. I am also trying to work out a road plan for a lens line up.
But the 10-22 vs 17-40 comes from being 2 weeks away from a tour of Italy, i want a better lens than the kit one for my holiday.

[ddelallata]

Try what Kawter did a while back to make you feel like you have an actual L lens. (classic)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68640&highlight=rubber+band

[Penance]

LoL

[Dchemist]

I use a 17-40 on my 20D routinely and am pleased with the results I get. It is easy to use and the result quality great.

[Jon]

17-40 doesn't add much in coverage to what you have with the kit (quality's another matter), so it'd be a replacement more than anything else. Thought about trying a (less expensive) prime in the wider range to see if you like shooting (as opposed to viewing) ultra-wide? It's a whole 'nother game.

[Penance]

Jon,
Thants a very good idea, tho i doubt i would have time before holidays.

[condyk]

Andy

If wide is your big priority then grab the Tokina 12-24 f4 from:

http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=24_43

These are now my 'prefered seller'. Superb 100% feedback on ebay and they now have the above web shop too. I got my flash from them (which is great!) and it was very fast delivery. Well packed. Hassle free. No VAT/Duty guarantee and P&P free. Downside is HK based so check the warranty for any item you may fancy.

If you have Canon fever, I'd probably get the 10-22 as it's maybe more exciting in potential, even though the 17-40 is very consistent and super resale (you know me!!)

I wonder though about whether a standard zoom might boost you more as you can use the kit for the odd wider angle: Tamron 28-75 is light for travel and consistently good. I'd buy my ex 50mm II back if you fancy it and want to cut me a deal :-) But maybe the narrow streets of Italian cities demand more priority on the wide end.

[Penance]

Dave,

Thanks for the link, i had been very interested in the Tokina before i found there was no UK stock. I will look into onestop, are they quick delivery?

Canon fever, mm, not sure. The 10-22 is very apealing, tho if i can get good holiday shots with a less wide but better quality..
Iv'e really not got on with th kit lense, so the replacement part also plays a role.

I am likeing the shots i got with the 50, but dont use it that much;)

The narrow streets are what has pushed me towards the wide:)
Althoug, i think we have fallen for Italy, so undoubtedly i will get other photo oppertunities apart from the up coming holiday:)

[condyk]

Thanks for the link, i had been very interested in the Tokina before i found there was no UK stock. I will look into onestop, are they quick delivery?

Iv'e really not got on with th kit lense, so the replacement part also plays a role.


Maybe the 17-40mm is the way to go if you want more walkaround/wide-boy range to replace the Kit. The thing is you will lose little if you do a shop around for best price now and then later sell it on. What price can you get it for? Maybe someone knows a better UK price. I've PM'd something that may help.

If you want the Tokina then OneStop delivered to my door within 5 working days. Order tonight and should be with you next Thursday or Friday, but maybe it's a risk if you really need it asap. The shots I've seen from it are great, but so are shots from the Canon 17-40 and the 10-22 usually :lol: Tough one!

[MadMesh]

the 10-22 is one of my favorite lenses. Its L quaity optics w/o the red ring around it. I shoot many pictures with it and it NEVER dissapoints.

[OceanView]

It really depends on what you want to shoot.
I personally like the ultra wide 10-22, it allows more creativity with your shots.
I just got a 17-40 and will be comparing these 2, although they really are not even similar.

[MadMesh]

they are NOT simmilar at all, two totally different lenses.

IMO, the 10-22 is the only EF-S i think i will ever need / own. It just seals the deal with the wide end for me.

Everything else i have will soon be a tamron 28-75, and my 70-200 to fill the gap. Maby a few primes i know ill use, like the 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm macro. maby the 85 1.8 but i doubt ill even touch it with a 70-200 in the bag.

10-22 for a 20D
17-40 for a FF camera

thats how i see it, i used to own a 17-40 too, great lens, but didnt satisify the craving for WIDE. Good walked around lens tho. I would take the 17-40 over the 10-22 is i were to shoot weddings all the time, but i dont.

[RikWriter]

Lately I have been pondering whether to sell my 17-40 and get a 10-22 also, spurred mostly by paeans to the 10-22 I've read online. I think I will wait till after my next trip out west to decide...see if the 17-40 meets my wide needs.

[Penance]

Im starting to think the 17-40 would be a better walk around lens..
Tho the w-i-d-e of 10-22 is appealing!

[MadMesh]

the 10-22 brings out photographic possbilities that cant be done with a 17-40. Mine really allows me to get thoes creative juices flowing...

Im covered up to 22mm with that lens too, then i have other glass to take care of the rest. Its a great lens, with a 1.6 crop, the 17-40 just didnt cut the cake...

[Penance]

well i suppose i could use the kit lens to cover above 22. Although i was never that happy with the kit lens.

[lancea]

Guess you just need to decide how unhappy you are with the kit. My first extra lens was the 17-40. While it's a great lens I still feel I should have stuck with the kit and used the money to cover areas it couldn't. As you can see from my signature I've corrected that decision! One thing's for sure, the 10-22 gives you something really different. It's great. A 17-40 won't, although you will probably notice an impovement in sharpness at least. Not huge, but certainly noticable in side by side comparison shots when viewed at 100% on your monitor.

[Penance]

well, i went and got a lense,

can you guess ??

http://www.penance.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fwide.jpg



100% crop --

http://www.penance.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fcrop.jpg

[escapehtml]

I agree with MadMesh, the 10-22 vs. 17-40L is no comparison. Your comparing a Canon's wide angle lens to a semi telephoto.

You might want to look at this thread on FM.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/241570/9

[escapehtml]

Penance,

If I was to guess between the 17-40 and 10-22, my choice would be the 17-40L shot wide open?

[Penance]

escapehtml

Its the 10-22, wide open.
No processing.

[kawter2]

I agree with MadMesh, the 10-22 vs. 17-40L is no comparison. Your comparing a Canon's wide angle lens to a semi telephoto.

You might want to look at this thread on FM.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/241570/9

I am always confused by this question as well..

You don't often see people say.. Which is better... 16-35mm 2.8 L or the 28-70mm 2.8 L

If you convert the crops on both lenses to 1.6 you are almost comparing the EXACT focal lengths above

[Penance]

I see your point, but i wasnt wanting a comparison of length, more needing help to decide which would be more usefull to me.
My wording is always bad.

[MadMesh]

see how sharp the 10-22 is? I keep telling people, the only reason it doesnt have a red ring around it, is because its an EF-S mount for the 1.6 crop bodies.

The 10-22 truly has L quality optics. Wide open the lens is good, stopped down, its amazing.

Back to the kit lens, The kit lens sucks, but its actually pretty decent. Optics stopped down arnt really bad at all. The first photo i told was actually off my kit lens! The only thing i dont like about the kit lens, is no USM motor... Just slow focusing and the lens isnt that fast. Optically for what it cost, its actually pretty decent.

10-22 was a no brainer choice for me, Its the only way i was gona cover the WIDE angle... I will be buying a Tamron 28-75mm to replace my kit lens, but i till still keep the kit lens. I guess u can see the 70-200 takes care of the rest. Im now covered from 10mm to 200mm. My next purchase will either be some primes like the 100mm Macro. or the 100-400L is i can convince myself i need the range up to 400mm

[Penance]

yep, you were right, it is sharp. Even for a shaky hand novice like me!

I will replace the kit lens at some time, but for now i think i am covered for holiday:)

[condyk]

Cool choice ... nearly as good as that 50mm II I sold you :lol: :lol:

[Penance]

Nearly, but not quite ;)

Dave, regarding price, i got it from bristol cameras, £495 on the nail. So the same price as Jessops with discount.

www.bristolcameras.co.uk

[condyk]

Nearly, but not quite ;)

Dave, regarding price, i got it from bristol cameras, £495 on the nail. So the same price as Jessops with discount.

www.bristolcameras.co.uk

Even cooler ... and if you want the '£75 rebate from Canon' voucher let me know and I'll put it in the post. Free money!! I won't need it. No charge ;)

[Penance]

If your sure you dont need it Dave, would be much appreciated :)

Could give myself an birthday treat.

[escapehtml]

LOL. I would hate to get started on the kit lens again.

Note to self: f/8 or lower for the kit lens. I'll probably glue my kit lens at f/11 :D

[escapehtml]

escapehtml

Its the 10-22, wide open.
No processing.

Did you shoot at 17mm or so? Doesn't seem like a 10mm length.

[Adam Hicks]

Good choice on the 10-22. The 17-40 on a 1.6 body is really nothing exciting. It's a great lens, but a ho-hum range. Your creative options are definitely opened a little more with the ability to shoot at 10mm (well 16mm with crop.) The lens is a fine piece of equipment!

[ScottE]

I have both the 10-22 and 17-40. I since I got the 10-22 my 17-40 has not seen much use. If could only keep one it would be the 10-22.

Optically, image quality is about the same for both lenses. The 17-40 does seem to have a little more robust construction, but the 10-22 certainly isn't delicate.

[Penance]

Did you shoot at 17mm or so? Doesn't seem like a 10mm length.

Shot at 10mm, but cropped to show only the cat.
I should of said that, it was a bit misleading.