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

I agree with the idea of buying the 10-22 (perhaps looking for a used one) and selling it when you upgrade. If it'll take you a year or two to upgrade then that's one whole year that you'll be missing out on shooting UWA. Though in sunset shots @ 10mm the sun will pretty much be reduced to a tiny speck.

I sold mine within a few hours after posting it on CL (something I regret). It shouldn't be a hard lens to sell if you take care of it.

Thanks for the advice and insight everyone,

I think I'm going to go with the 10-22mm EF-S, and then sell it if I ever upgrade to full frame. Just my opinion, but I think it's kind of a rip off when the 17-40mm L lens comes with the lens hood and lens bag, AND it costs less than the 10-22mm.

yupp thats pretty dumb... or smart because Canon is just giving us more reasons to go FF.

I have both, and while I agree that they are both resistant to flare, I feel the 10-22 is significantly more resistant. I do a lot of cloud shots, and when trying to shoot a solar halo (i.e. the sun is in the frame), the 10-22 does a better job.

Oeijur wrote in post #15034315
Thanks for the advice and insight everyone,

I think I'm going to go with the 10-22mm EF-S, and then sell it if I ever upgrade to full frame. Just my opinion, but I think it's kind of a rip off when the 17-40mm L lens comes with the lens hood and lens bag, AND it costs less than the 10-22mm.

Don't bother buying a lens hood for the 10-22. It's too short and wide to provide any real protection for the front element, and the lens is already very flare resistant. It's only function will be to take up too much space in your camera bag.

I am a firm believer in using lens hoods, yet the 10-22 is the only lens I've owned where I bypassed getting a hood.

One thing about owning the 10-22 AND the 17-40 is that you automatically get the hood (the one supplied with the L is the one recommended for the 10-22).

Scott M wrote in post #15034952
Don't bother buying a lens hood for the 10-22. It's too short and wide to provide any real protection for the front element, and the lens is already very flare resistant. It's only function will be to take up too much space in your camera bag.

I am a firm believer in using lens hoods, yet the 10-22 is the only lens I've owned where I bypassed getting a hood.

I agree with this too. These two lenses are the only ones I don't use the hood for. I have the 17-40 hood, but have never used it. If I want something, I put the 24-105 hood on and take it off when shooting wide.

The 10-22 is a bit wider than the 17-40 on a FF. Other than that factor, I find both to be great lens. I didnt have much flare issues with either. The right hand is the best hood for this lens if you shoot wide. While I still had the 10-22, I used it on the FF. That combo shoots great images at 16mm. I was sold on the crispness of FF so I decided to swap it for the 17-40 so I dont always have to pop the 10-22 shroud off to use it. I also do miss my 10-22/7D combo for greater DOF especially getting 3ft to infinity shots all in focus .