Mike55 wrote in post #16907234
I've owned both, on both formats. The 17-40L on a FF destroys the 10-22 on a crop. Everything about the image is better. That doesn't mean you can't take great photos with the 10-22 on a crop. You can, and many of them. Same with the Sigma 10-20. But the detail and color is just on another level with the 17-40 on FF(I actually found the contrast and color superior with the 17-40L when using it on crop, too).
Agreed, I find the 17-40mm to be consistently sharper than the 10-22mm, and the corners are sharper as well.
light_pilgrim wrote in post #16907885
One thing I do not get....seems to be the the quality of lenses is getting worse (not talking optics). All plastic L? Strange to me. Look at Zeiss or Sigma. Feels like a plastic toy.
Plastic has a better weight to strength ratio.
Besides, if you drop metal it can bend, a quality plastic is going to scuff but it will retain it's shape.
light_pilgrim wrote in post #16907897
Do you imagine a plastic Zeiss or Leica lens?
These companies have different goals. Leica is in the business of creating high quality luxury items, Canon is in the business of creating high performance and high reliability tools.
That is to say, Canon desires to make a robust and lightweight lens for the best tool possible in the field, while Leica desires to make a luxury item that feels 'nice' to hold in the hand.