Canon 10-22 or the Canon 17-40L

Need some help, Looking at getting a general lens for a 50d, but with landscapes in mind, I love the wider angle of the 10-22 but would love to get a L lens for the durability and build quality like the 17-40, What are your thoughts and pros and cons, or any other lens that someone suggests

Since you already have an 18-55, I'd get the 10-22. You have the range of ~17mm to 40mm covered, and if you plan to shoot at around f/8 the move from the 18-55 to the 17-40 is not going to be revolutionary. You might as well spend money at the moment for a range you don't currently have.

Later, you will indeed find the 17-40 is a nice choice for landscapes on 1.6X. It has good color, good sharpness and very good resistance to flare.

It depends on what you are looking to get out of a lens. If your prime factors are build quality and durability then the 17-40 is built better than the 10-22. If your prime factors are image quality then the 10-22 is the way to go. Either way, both are fine lenses.

I'd say the 17-40 incase you want to move to a full-frame in the future, thats why I bought a Tokina instead of the 10-22.

I had the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. The range was great for landscapes and interiors, but I returned it because I figured I'd rather have the 10-22 range long term. I haven't pulled the trigger on the 10-22 yet, I'm looking at getting the 17-55 first.

mitch.mccabe wrote in post #13464636
Need some help, Looking at getting a general lens for a 50d, but with landscapes in mind, I love the wider angle of the 10-22 but would love to get a L lens for the durability and build quality like the 17-40, What are your thoughts and pros and cons, or any other lens that someone suggests

You first need to decide why you are looking for a new lens. The bottom line is that the EF-S 10-22 and the EF 17-40L are not for the same application on a crop. While the 17-40 is considered an UWA zoom on FF, it is not so on a crop.

If you are looking for the UWA perspective for landscapes, your alternative to the 10-22 is not the 17-40, it is the various Sigma and Tokina lenses covering that general range.

If it is because you are dissatisfied with the IQ of both of the lenses you already have that cover that range (18-55, 18-200), then I'd suggest you include more than just the 17-40 for consideration. The Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM is described as "L" quality optics, but not build. It is a fixed f2.8 also.

If you want the panache of having an "L".... go for it!

BTW, unless buying an FF is imminent, I wouldn't worry about the EF-S mount as being a problem. Get what you need for the kind of photos you want to take now would be my advice.

Canon 10-22. I did, and don't regret it...

RTPVid wrote in post #13464833
If it is because you are dissatisfied with the IQ of both of the lenses you already have that cover that range (18-55, 18-200), then I'd suggest you include more than just the 17-40 for consideration. The Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM is described as "L" quality optics, but not build. It is a fixed f2.8 also.

I'll just mention here, I owned an EF-S 17-55 for a couple years. Very nice lens. For the OP's stated interests I think the EF 17-40 is actually a better lens. The 17-55 is very sharp and of course fast. The 17-40 is probably just as sharp, has better color and is slower, which doesn't matter as much to the landscape shooter.

Most importantly, I found the EF-S 17-55 was the most prone to veiling flare of any EOS lens I've used to date. For most people and applications this is not a big deal. For landscape shooters who often have the sun in the shot or near the edge of the shot, this can be huge.

I think for 95% of crop shooters, the 17-55 is probably better. But not for everyone.

BTW, I never owned the Tokina 11-16, but I have also heard that this lens is very prone to flare issues. The EF_S 10-22 might be a better choice there for landscapers as well.

I have both lenses and if you really like wide, there is nothing like the 10-22 on a crop sensor. If you've never really shot this wide, I think it is superb and something you have to at least try. 10mm is much, much wider than 17 mm, it doesn't even compare IMO. I think the 10-22 focuses closer too, which is a definite benefit with super-wide lenses to get close to the foreground. Unless you absolutely need weatherproofing I would highly recommend the 10-22 - it is still built pretty well and I wouldn't say the 17-40 feels that much more 'solid' or likely to last longer.

The only thing that annoys me about the 10-22 is the focus ring is near the rear element and the zoom near the front, the reverse of all the other zooms I have.

And one other slight annoyance actually. The CA doesn't seem as consistent (I don't seem to be able to find a consistent set of values for lighting and subject, which I can't quite explain) and is greater on the 10-22, but still mostly correctable in PP.

ejenner wrote in post #13465003
The only thing that annoys me about the 10-22 is the focus ring is near the rear element and the zoom near the front, the reverse of all the other zooms I have.

This drove me crazy when I owned it. I switched to the 16-35 when I got a 5DII.

talbot_sunbeam wrote in post #13464881
Canon 10-22. I did, and don't regret it...

I bought this lens, and did regret it when the usm failed after 3 years...very happy with the Tok 11-16 so far....

The 10-22 range isn't a 'general range' lens. Its quite specific, 10mm is VERY wide, you either need to get in extremely close to use it or stay out to get your wide angles. The rest of the range is for framing really, I mean you wont take a quick snap of someone at 13mm, they will be tiny in the frame.
Its not a walk around lens. Saying that, its probably my next lens purchase to replace my Sigma 10-20. Why not sell some of your lens off and get both ?? You seem to have a lot of overlapping focal lengths..........

h14nha wrote in post #13469194
The 10-22 range isn't a 'general range' lens. Its quite specific, 10mm is VERY wide, you either need to get in extremely close to use it or stay out to get your wide angles. The rest of the range is for framing really, I mean you wont take a quick snap of someone at 13mm, they will be tiny in the frame.
Its not a walk around lens.

So 35mm on FF is not a walkaround lens?
22mm on the canon gives you pretty much the same FOV as that. Its 10-22, not a 10mm prime.

I'd get the 10-22 to complement your current kit, but if you want to replace the 18-55, I'd get a sigma 17-50 if you're happy with the range and want better build as well as better IQ, aperture and focus speed.

Sirrith wrote in post #13469248
So 35mm on FF is not a walkaround lens? ...

Perhaps, but a 16-35 zoom is not a walkaround zoom. Just as you point out it is not a 10mm prime, so it is also not a 22mm prime. It covers the range from ultra wide to wide, which is not generally considered "walkaround" range.

Just an FYI... Of the 2 lenses you're asking about, the build of the 17-40mm is excellent, and the build of the 10-22mm leaves a lot to be desired.