FF lens comparable to canon 10-22

im going to be selling my canon 10-22 to fund a 5d mkii, what lens will give me the UWA and amazing IQ that i currently enjoy with the canon 10-22 and my 60D?

mike_311 wrote in post #14959084
im going to be selling my canon 10-22 to fund a 5d mkii, what lens will give me the UWA and amazing IQ that i currently enjoy with the canon 10-22 and my 60D?

The 17-40mm F4L or the 16-35mm F2.8L

The 17-40mm is practically the same price as the 10-22.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Mike, the 16-35 provides almost exactly the same field of view range on a "full-frame" format camera as the 10-22 does on the APS-C format cameras.

The 17-40 on a "full-frame" camera is a bit less wide on the short end and longer at the long end compared to what you are used to.

The 16-35 provides you with a constant aperture f/2.8 lens while the 17-40 is a constant aperture f/4 lens. The 16-35 would allow you to have shallower depth of field and/or work in lower light levels than the 17-40.

SkipD wrote in post #14959123
Mike, the 16-35 provides almost exactly the same field of view range on a "full-frame" format camera as the 10-22 does on the APS-C format cameras.

The 17-40 on a "full-frame" camera is a bit less wide on the short end and longer at the long end compared to what you are used to.

The 16-35 provides you with a constant aperture f/2.8 lens while the 17-40 is a constant aperture f/4 lens. The 16-35 would allow you to have shallower depth of field and/or work in lower light levels than the 17-40.

being unfamiliar with FF, will either of lenses lenses allow me to play with distortion like my 10-22 does? for instance objects being really close to the lens or do they behave differently on a FF?

mike_311 wrote in post #14959143
being unfamiliar with FF, will either of lenses lenses allow me to play with distortion like my 10-22 does? for instance objects being really close to the lens or do they behave differently on a FF?

Most say the 10-22 has little to no distortion.

The 17-40's is definitely noticeable. I have no idea on the 16-35.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=FWUjwbJK8fQ

Speedster159 wrote in post #14959184
Most say the 10-22 has little to no distortion.

The 17-40's is definitely noticeable. I have no idea on the 16-35.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=FWUjwbJK8fQ

im talking will be able to make shots like this:

http://500px.com/photo​/7449911

mike_311 wrote in post #14959143
being unfamiliar with FF, will either of lenses lenses allow me to play with distortion like my 10-22 does? for instance objects being really close to the lens or do they behave differently on a FF?

If you are referring to perspective distortion, there would be little to no difference as that is caused by the distance between camera and the various elements of the scene. The 16-35 would provide the same field of view at 16mm on "full-frame" as the 10-22 does on the APS-C camera when set to 10mm.

The 17-40 isn't as wide as the 16-35, of course. The difference is a bit over 6% between the two.

Please read our "sticky" (found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.

I have the 7D/10-22 and the 5D3/16-35.

They are very close to the same in regards to image creativity and FOV.

I believe with either lens/camera combo you will be able to achieve what you see in the image you linked.

If I lost my 5D3/16-35 combo, I would not miss it too much because the 7D/10-22 is that good.

Speedster159 wrote in post #14959184
Most say the 10-22 has little to no distortion.

The 17-40's is definitely noticeable. I have no idea on the 16-35.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=FWUjwbJK8fQ

You're right, the 10-22 does not but I think the OP is referring to perspective distortion which is dependent on the subject distance from the lens. Since this is the case, you'll be able to play with the same concepts on your new FF rig.

The 17-40 is slightly less wide than the 10-22, but I doubt you'd even notice if you werent comparing the same shot side-by-side. 17mm on FF is definitely WIDE.

thanks guys.

im really want to get a full frame but i fell in love with the 10-22, unfortunately i do more portrait photography than i do landscape nowadays, so long as there is a quality lens comparable to get in the future, my 28-75 will have to suffice for now.

Consider the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8, a fantastic UWA for full frame. Look up reviews on it.

With several members correctly stating the 17-40 is slightly less wide, perhaps some (ahem) perspective would help. 17-40 is like a 10.5-25 on your 60D. While the 16-35 is nearly identical in FL, it is faster, heavier, larger, and much more expensive - 2x the cost of the 17-40.

Bottom line, the 17-40 is more comparable to your 10-22, even with the slight FL / range difference.

I shoot a tamron 17-35, f/2.8-4, great lens

Another full frame option is the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 HSM II. While I do not own this lens, it has intrigued me, as it is even wider than Canon's two ultra-wide angle zoom lenses for full frame.

So, I wouldn't be too worried about having UWA options if you move to full frame.