5d + 17-40 or 40D + 10-20 (architectural)

For architectural (commercial outdoor based) Photography. What would you use as your main if you had the choice between the two?

5D with the 17-40L

vs

40D with sigma 10-20

Pros and cons? or is it going to pretty much be the same.

You will probably get better IQ from the 5D. Also, I can't imagine the Sigma 10-20 being better than the 17-40L, at least in terms of build quality.

Hi SH,

I use the 40D & 10-22mm combination very frequently - the lens produces gorgeous results. Clarity, colour-rendition and sharpness are all there....
When using nearer to 10mm there is excessive convergence - so for landscapes and intended effects - brilliant! But for real architectural photography either consider buying a dedicated TSE lens.

I used to have the 5D and 17-40mm combo - and those produced results that I still prefer.

Have a look before you decide on which way you go - [17-40mm Lens thread]
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=134756

If the choice is between these two, then I would go for the 5D with 17-40L: full frame and a better lens.

However, if you aim to tackle commercial architecture, then you should consider a tilt and shift lens, as correcting converging verticals is a key feature you require. Yes you can correct this in post processing, but at the significant loss of IQ.

Actually, I did some tests between the 5D/17-40 and 40D/10-22 combos a while back and the 5D results were a bit better, but not as much as you might expect if you listen to everyone on this forum. Shooting at base ISO, as I imagine you would be for architecture (I do for landscapes), the noise difference is negligble. The only real difference was that the 5D was a little sharper out of camera - but I was still able to get 20x30 prints from my 40D that looked great and I'd never print any larger than that so the gain in sharpness was lost for me.

I eventually sold the 5D combo and happily used the 40D combo for a very long time until I was bitten by the Zeiss bug, and it only made sense to shell out for the expensive ZE glass if I could use it in its native field of view - so I got another 5D and ZE21.

So, the moral of that story is that unless you're going to shell out for the "uber" primes like the ZE 21 or any of the canon TS-e's (the latter of which are really the best lenses for architecture), you might be better served sticking with the 40D if you're on a budget. Of course, if you have the money to just blow, you'll get slightly better results out of the 5D - but probably nothing a client would notice so the choice is yours to make.

Also, the Canon 10-22 is a better lens than the Sigma 10-20 I assume you are talking about - I believe the Canon 10-22 is actually a better lens than the 17-40...on any format.

None, get a better lens for 5d.

I will second that the Canon 10-22mm is better than a 17-40L.

When I had my 40D, my 10-22mm almost never left it. Amazing what can come out of that combo!

I have a 17-40 now and both 5D's. I like the 17-40 a lot. I would take full frame and 17-40 over the other combo though. If you are shooting hand held, definitely get the 5d.

I'd recommend upping your budget by just a bit and getting the 5D and a 12-24. It's super wide and has very low distortion. It's sharp enough at small apertures.

plasticmotif wrote in post #13244812
I'd recommend upping your budget by just a bit and getting the 5D and a 12-24. It's super wide and has very low distortion. It's sharp enough at small apertures.

YIKES! everyone missed the fact i am asking about the 10-20 and not 10-22. lol. its ok though.

do you mean the sigma 12-24? or the tokina.

No, I think they meant that you should consider putting more money and NOT buy the Sigma and save for the Canon 10-22
The Canon 10-22 is a nicer - better lens than the Sigma, and Much nicer than the Canon 17-40 (L and all )
I think that is what they meant
Now, I own a Sigma 10-20 4-5.6 and is a wonderful lens
If you are doing real state - architectural (and you are not considering a tilt shift) the Sigma will give you wonderful results

The only full frame 12-24 is the Sigma. Version 1 is better than version 2.

ok thanks guys, i got the answer i needed and it comes down to getting what justifies my needs at the moment. Ive been contracted to do some outdoor patio shots so TS-E isnt quite as necessary since there is large room and there wont be much converging lines or focus on converging lines.

Ill stay with the 17-40 till i can get the 16-35. thanks again!...ugh ju st wished my 5d screen wasnt posteurized

hm... tilt-shift lens are the best for architectural
way too much distortion for those lens u just mentioned

stayhumble wrote in post #13250532
ok thanks guys, i got the answer i needed and it comes down to getting what justifies my needs at the moment. Ive been contracted to do some outdoor patio shots so TS-E isnt quite as necessary since there is large room and there wont be much converging lines or focus on converging lines.

Ill stay with the 17-40 till i can get the 16-35. thanks again!...ugh ju st wished my 5d screen wasnt posteurized

I wouldn't bother with the 16-35, over the 17-40, for your intended use. You don't need 1 stop more light and, stopped down, I doubt you would notice any difference other than a lighter wallet.

I also thought the 10-22 is the better lens (17-40) but the 5D is considerably better than the 40D as far as IQ, imo. I've owned all of the above at some point.

I'd go with the 5D, but the 17-40 had a decent amount of distortion.

For strict architecture I think a TS-E lens, or a wide low distortion prime might serve you better.

17 and 24 TSE are highly regarded, I myself am working on getting the 24, because it can use filters, letting me use it as dual purpose landscape/architecture lens.