Help me decide keep 17-40 or trade for a 10-22

What to do??? I love the 17-40 on my 40d but it just does not seem wide enough for landscapes, which I like to shoot; however, I just can't seem to let it go! I thought I might move up to a 5d but who knows when? I have been tempted to trade lenses lately by several posts looking to trade a canon 10-22 for a 17-40?

Well for those of us switching from crop sensors to full frame its an easy trade. I have a 10-22 and want a 17-40. They are basically the same focal lengths just for different formats :P

CameraBuff wrote in post #8841052
What to do??? I love the 17-40 on my 40d but it just does not seem wide enough for landscapes, which I like to shoot; however, I just can't seem to let it go! I thought I might move up to a 5d but who knows when? I have been tempted to trade lenses lately by several posts looking to trade a canon 10-22 for a 17-40?

I would never trade my 17-40 for a 10-22 that`s for sure. The 10-22 is an EF-S lens made for crop bodies and the 17-40 is an EF lens. I use my 17-40 with my 5DMKI and 5DMKII and find it wide enough for me, but I haven't used it on a Crop body. If you upgrade to a FF body, you`ll be kicking yourself if you trade it....

CameraBuff,
Yea, that seems hard.... I was lucky and able to keep my 17-40L and get the 10-22.. Now my 17-40L is now probably my least used EF/EF-S lens in my collection but its an L and I still keep it If I could only have one (which I hope doesn't happen!), I would take my 10-22 as my 40D is my most used camera.

He can always just trade it back :P

For landscapes, you really can't beat the wide angle the 10-22 provides. The jump from 17mm down to 10mm is immense. I was trying to decide which lens to get for my XSi (10-22 vs 17-40) not too long ago and I went with the 10-22 because I knew in the end that I would be too limited by 17mm, especially on landscape photos. I love the lens; really great and can even be used as a walkaround to a certain extent.

In the end, you really have to ask yourself how badly you want/need the 10mm to 16mm range.

Ironically, I may be moving to a 5D soon and I was thinking of posting a For Trade ad, asking to trade my 10-22 for a 17-40L.

If the 17-40 isnt wide enough than its a no brainer...trade it for the 10-22, you will get more use out of it.

Then if you go FF just sell/trade the 10-22 for the 17-40, it will be a quick/easy thing to do

Loved the 10-22 when I had a crop. If I were you I'd swap the 17-40 for one. It doesn't do you any good being an L and not wide enough for you.

Thanks for the quick responses and sorry I meant to post this under the lens section (monitors please move). Leaning toward looking into a local trade (maybe) so hard to let that 17-40 go but I just don't see my moving to the 5d soon - way too many 40d's up for sale lately with the 7d out!

I had a 17-40 on my 20D, but recently switched to 24-105 because I realized I used the wide end very infrequently, and often wished I could zoom in more.

From the sample images I have seen from both lenses, they each produce very sharp, crisp, vibrant images, where the colour just "POPS".

Obviously, being an "L" lens, the 17-40 has the sturdier build, and probably better optics, but technical details aside, the resulting images should be the main consideration, and as I mention above, to me, it's hard to see THAT much of a difference.

So I would say, if you want the wider focal length range, go for the 10-22. And hey if you want the red "ring" of an "L" lens, just put a red rubber band on the end of the lens, and voila...there's your "L" lens.

Volatile wrote in post #8841336
I had a 17-40 on my 20D, but recently switched to 24-105 because I realized I used the wide end very infrequently, and often wished I could zoom in more.

Yeah, for the 40d I think the best lens line up in general might be the 10-22, the 24-105, 70-200L than 100-400L for telephoto lenses?

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #8841522
it's hard to see THAT much of a difference.

I find no difference between the two, and as far as I can tell the 10-22 would be an L if it weren't EFS. Comparing the optics, I can't seem to find any differences. The L would be built better considering it has weather sealing, but if your camera doesn't have the same sealing what's the point?

Have you ever been past 22 on the 17-40?? If so how much, more than 50%, more than 75%?

That might help you decide, or it might not.

There is a little more wide angle distortion with the wider lens. Not a lot, but some. Canon has corrected the 10-22 very well, but it's near impossible to rid that wide lens completely of some slight tendency to barrel things near the edges. Look at vertical lines near the corners, in particular.

That said, I'd get another lens instead of trading. I have the Tokina 12-24 and really like it on crop sensor cameras.

By the way, I tested it to 18mm on my 5D MkII full frame yesterday, and it didn't vignette (but has some barrel distortion and can flare a bit with strong light hitting the front ... shooting into the sun, for example... it's just hard to protect the lens well with a hood is why.) You can't even fit an EF-S lens like the 10-22 to a full frame Canon (unless you take a hacksaw to the lens).

Oh, and Tokina also makes 11-16/2.8, but it's a bit more expensive than the 12-24. Both the 11-16 and 12-24 are very "L-like" in build quality, except that I would assume they are not truly weather sealed (but neither are any of the wide angle Canon L-series zooms, unless you fit a UV filter on them).