7D + EF-S 10-22mm vs. 5D3 + EF 17-40L

I have yet to swap out my EFS 10-22mm as a UWA solution for my kit since buying the 5D3 last spring, since I do not shoot a lot of UWA. However, this summer we have scheduled a trip to Glacier National Park, so I anticipate taking a few ultra wide shots.

My current plan is to take the 5D3, 7D, 24-105L, 100-400L, and an UWA lens. The 100-400L will stay mounted on the 7D as we travel and hike, ready for any wildlife we may encounter. The 5D3 w/ 24-105L will be my main landscape body, and used for general "walk around" shots.

For the ultra wide shots, will the 5D3 + 17-40L provide a substantial image quality improvement over just using my existing 7D + EFS 10-22? I do enlarge some special shots from our travels to as large as 24x36, so there is the potential for a UWA shot to be displayed in such a manner.

Also, would the 17-40L, when used in the 24mm range, be an improvement over the 24-105L, which suffers from distortion, vignetting and sometimes CA at its wide end? I can correct these flaws in Lightroom, but it would be an added benefit to justify getting the 17-40L.

With the Amazon credits and gift cards I've accumulated and what I could sell the 10-22mm for, the swap of lenses wouldn't cost me anything. Of course, I could always use those Amazon credits for something else if the improvement in image quality will not be worth the exchange.

I used a T2i + 10-22mm for a year before switching to a 5D Mark II (now III) + 17-40mm. The better image quality on the 5D Mark II (III) made the latter combination better for me. Also more pixels to work with.
The 17-40mm is a nice lens stopped down (f/8 and higher). But so is the 10-22mm. However, for landscape shooting, a big difference in the two options is weather-sealing. I have shot with the 17-40L in beaches, rain, dust, snow. Been sprayed multiple times, even had my 5D Mark II + 17-40mm immersed for a few seconds in sea water in a beach in Indonesia. Wiped the lens dry and kept shooting!

The 17-40L is better built and weather sealed - I can use it anywhere. Makes it possible to take photos like these:

IMAGE LINK: http://ffazalphotograp​hy.com/p25495892/e43f7​2c3a

IMAGE LINK: http://ffazalphotograp​hy.com/p25495892/e49cb​92f6

Apple with apple, orange with orange.

The difference when stopped down and at ISO 100 is so small it's negligible.

10-22, 17-55 and 60mm macro are very much comparable with L lenses in terms of IQ. 10-22 is a great lens and it should very much substitute 17-40 on a FF. build quality is a different story

Beautiful shots, danwanfur.

I am not as concerned about build quality, as the 10-22mm has been sufficient in that area for my needs in the almost 7 years I've owned it. I am more interested in any improved image quality with the combo of the 5D3 sensor + the L lens over the 7D's crop sensor + the 10-22.

The 17-40L would allow me to just leave the 100-400L mounted on the 7D 100% of the time, so there is a convenience factor, too. I would lose the ability to carry both the 5D3/24-105L and 7D/10-22 at the same time to cover the UWA -> short telephoto ranges without a lens change, but I only took advantage of that once in the year I have owned the 5D3.

Any thoughts on the 17-40L at 24mm vs. the 24-105L at the same focal length?

Scott M wrote in post #15671174
Beautiful shots, danwanfur.

I am not as concerned about build quality, as the 10-22mm has been sufficient in that area for my needs in the almost 7 years I've owned it. I am more interested in any improved image quality with the combo of the 5D3 sensor + the L lens over the 7D's crop sensor + the 10-22.

The 17-40L would allow me to just leave the 100-400L mounted on the 7D 100% of the time, so there is a convenience factor, too. I would lose the ability to carry both the 5D3/24-105L and 7D/10-22 at the same time to cover the UWA -> short telephoto ranges without a lens change, but I only took advantage of that once in the year I have owned the 5D3.

Any thoughts on the 17-40L at 24mm vs. the 24-105L at the same focal length?

In your situation then it couldn't hurt to switch the 10-22mm for the 17-40mm. The L lens cost about the same, allows for more versatility, and is weather-sealed if you ever need that functionality. It also provides at least as good performance on the 5D Mark III (in my opinion slightly better stopped down). Nothing to lose!
Don't get me wrong. I think the 10-22mm is a great lens. I've taken some of my favorite pictures with it:

IMAGE LINK: http://ffazalphotograp​hy.com/p177416109/e422​51360

If you have the money and if I were in your shoes, I would just go strait for the 5D + 17-40L. The 7D is a great camera, and the EF-S 10-22 is a really good lens (I'm thinking about purchasing it myself after having rented it for a couple of days), but I think that in most cases the Full Frame sensor is better for landscape photography than the APS-C in the 7D. However with that said if you look around on these forums about comparisons of crop cameras with the EF-S 10-22 vs FF + 17-40L I think you'll find that especially after PP, most of the shots look equally great whether they're on Crop or FF but that the FF shots just have that something extra that makes it worth that much more.

So in other words, if you want budgeted and maybe will also use the 7D for shooting some wildlife, then go for the 7D + EF-S 10-22 combo. If you've got the extra money, go full steam ahead to 5D + 17-40L.

Scott M wrote in post #15668090
For the ultra wide shots, will the 5D3 + 17-40L provide a substantial image quality improvement over just using my existing 7D + EFS 10-22?

No. I went from a 50D + 10-22 to a 5D2 + 17-40 for my ultra wide shots. While the new combo certainly isn't bad, it's also not better and I have considered going back. I think the 10-22 shots may have been a little sharper. The 17-40 is a nicer lens to handle, though.

Yes, noticeably better, especially with the distortion.

I went from the T2i + 10-22 to the 5D3 + 17-40L just recently. Given the choice to shoot with either combo, if money was no option, I'd take the 5D3/17-40L every time. However, I don't feel that it improved my photos (that much), I just like the feel, weather sealing and versatility a little better. Center sharpness is slightly better on the 17-40L but the corners are no better than the 10-22.

I think the overall value of a 7D + 10-22 is better, but the overall quality of the 5D3 + 17-40L setup is slightly better. Does that make sense?

I am leaning towards getting the 17-40L and putting the EFS 10-22 up for sale. It would also give me a UWA solution for those times I just want to take along a single body -- which has always been the 5D3 since I bought it.

The main difference between those UWAs, as said in other posts, is build quality

Yes, I found 10-22 to be amazing in IQ, but the feel of using 17-40 gives me a thought like "I'd be safe if it fall accidentally"

My main reason on taking 10-22, is just coz I'm sticking with APS-C

FrostMonolith wrote in post #15673065
Yes, I found 10-22 to be amazing in IQ, but the feel of using 17-40 gives me a thought like "I'd be safe if it fall accidentally"

It is. I had my 5D2 + 17-40 combo sitting on my car seat. The camera strap hooked on the door handle when I opened it and the kit fell out of the car and hit the concrete. The 5D2 had some paint scraped off near the shutter button. The 17-40 hit near the front edge hard enough that it broke off a piece of the plastic threading where the hood attaches. I picked up the kit and kept on shooting. Everything still works fine.

I did end up ordering a 17-40L. Thanks for the insight, everyone. When I have some time, I need to put the EFS 10-22mm up for sale.

Scott M wrote in post #15676065
I did end up ordering a 17-40L. Thanks for the insight, everyone. When I have some time, I need to put the EFS 10-22mm up for sale.

and your last EF-S will be gone... *moment of silence