Canon 10-22mm EF-S vs. 17-40mm EF for Flare

I take a lot of sunset shots with the sun in the photo, and was getting a lot of flare. I've posted about this in another thread, ( https://photography-on-the.net …70&highlight=su​nset+flare ) and it was recommended I get the Canon 10-22mm EF-S. After extensive research on the net, it appeared that this lens was very very flare resistant.

I was about to order one when the 6D was announced, now I'm thinking about getting the Canon 17-40mm f/4L.

Does anyone have any experience in comparing the two lenses, especially regarding flare/ghosting. I realize this might be comparing apples to oranges since it is an EF-S vs. EF lens.

-I currently have a 40D, but might upgrade to FF in a year or two.
-I'm more interested in comparing the two lenses for ghosting/flaring vs. image quality (almost all reviews I've read said both lenses had great IQ)
-I realize the 17-40mm won't be as wide on a crop, but that is not a deal breaker for me.
-pictures from review sites (specifically www.the-digital-picture.com) showed little flare in the 17-40mm, but searching through POTN seemed to show that people did have more flare with the 17-40mm vs. the 10-22mm.

Any insight on this matter is appreciated.

The 17-40 is somewhat less flare resistant if you compare it to the 10-22. The 10-22 I dare say, is pretty legendary in that department of ultra-wide lenses.

But if you get a 17-40 now, it will not be as wide. It will be as a 24 for FF.
So you will have to trade-off the wide if you buy it now.

The 10-22 is extremely good in this department - It's very rare that it gives me a problem.

You have to be careful with a 10-22, as it seems to catch a lot of "feet". So watch the whole viewfinder when shooting.
I think feet are worse than flare...

I own and use both with my 7D. Both handle flaring very well.

Eyal wrote in post #15030718
The 17-40 is somewhat less flare resistant if you compare it to the 10-22. The 10-22 I dare say, is pretty legendary in that department of ultra-wide lenses.

But if you get a 17-40 now, it will not be as wide. It will be as a 24 for FF.
So you will have to trade-off the wide if you buy it now.

Actually 17mm is a 27.2mm FF equivalent. It's still a standard wide but not ultrawide.

i had them both, neither presented a serious flare problem

just buy the 10-22 now and sell it when you upgrade.

Both are excellent when it comes to flare. If you plan to go FF, get the 17-40. If you plan to stick with crop, get the Sigma 8-16.

I hardly think to Sigma 8-16 would be a sufficient choice over the 10-22mm Canon. If using a CPL filter the Sigma design would make that almost impossible.

The Sigma 8-16 is the premiere crop ultrawide right now.

Mike55 wrote in post #15031992
The Sigma 8-16 is the premiere crop ultrawide right now.

By who's standards? From what I've always read about it the distortion is quite noticeable on the wide end and as I mentioned the use of filters is going to be a problem.

Tsmith wrote in post #15032700
By who's standards? From what I've always read about it the distortion is quite noticeable on the wide end and as I mentioned the use of filters is going to be a problem.

Agreed.. yes, the Sigma is the widest rectilinear for crop, but that doesn't necessarily make it "the premier".

mike_311 wrote in post #15031101
just buy the 10-22 now and sell it when you upgrade.

I agree. If you need an ultra wide lens for your 40D, then the 17-40L will not be of much help. Why buy a lens for a camera that you "may" buy in a couple of years? Buy for what you need now. You can always sell it in a couple of years for little loss if you do decide to buy a full frame camera.

Or, you could end up like me, and decide to keep a crop body even after getting a full frame one. In that case, the EFS 10-22mm will continue to be a useful UWA lens for you, as it is for me.

rick_reno wrote in post #15031066
i had them both, neither presented a serious flare problem

^^^ this for me too. And flare is a big deal for me. Maybe in controlled tests the 17-40 is slightly worse, but in shooting I have not noticed any difference since moving to FF a year ago and using the 17-40 as an UWA replacing the 10-22.