17-40 vs 16-35 ii vs EF-S 10-22

I'm in a really weird place as far as my gear goes, and I'm hoping someone can help me figure out the best route to go. I'm looking to fill in my <24mm focal length hole with a zoom.

I presently have a crop and full frame. I've never purchased an EF-S lens, as I've always intended to go strictly full frame one day. Now that I have a full frame, I'm not sure if I only want a FF at my disposal. I suspect my kit will continue to contain at least one crop.

Presently, my crop is for sporting events, or for anything else where I might want a cropped field of view. This excludes landscapes and portraiture, but I am dabbling in moon photography with my crop body.

I have a night photography workshop coming up, and I'm hoping to run both of my cameras during it. I'll be using my 24-70 on my 6D.

If I purchase a 17-40, that would be a 35mm FOV of ~27.2-64 on my 70D. I don't think that's low enough, so I don't think this lens is a contender. I could be wrong.

If I purchase a 16-35 ii, that would be a 35mm FOV of ~25.5-56. That's better, but still not thrilling. I think could live with that for the workshop, and I think this lens (being that as I understand things, it was designed for the 1.3 sensor), may actually perform really well on my 1.6 body. And, it will be usable on my 6D.

The EF-S 10-22 would give me a 35mm FOV of 16–35mm, which is perfect, IMO. But, this lens would only work on my 70D. My 6D would probably get the 17-40.

Depending on what the 7D replacement turns out to be like, I may purchase that and send my 70D off to be converted for astrophotography (once the warranty is up). If I don't think the 7D replacement is enough of an upgrade over the 70D, I may just purchase a 60Da. In the event I do wind up with a crop astro body, the EF-S 10-22 would certainly be useful for that. Otherwise, my eldest son (who is using my T1i) would really be the only person getting any use out of the 10-22.

The workshop is at the end of March, and I'm really confounded.

If I had a full frame camera, I wouldn't buy a lens that couldn't be used on it. Some other options here are the Sigma 12-24, which is really wide on full frame and still wide on crop. Also the Tokina 11-16, 24-24 and 12-28 can all be used on full frame as well as crop. the 11-16 becomes essentially a 16mm prime and vignettes badly wider than that. The 12-2X's can be used to about 18-19mm without vignetting.

There is also the Tokina 16-28/2.8 and 17-35/4. I have heard better things about the 16-28 then the 17-35 though.

FEChariot wrote in post #16701439
If I had a full frame camera, I wouldn't buy a lens that couldn't be used on it. Some other options here are the Sigma 12-24, which is really wide on full frame and still wide on crop. Also the Tokina 11-16, 24-24 and 12-28 can all be used on full frame as well as crop. the 11-16 becomes essentially a 16mm prime and vignettes badly wider than that. The 12-2X's can be used to about 18-19mm without vignetting.

There is also the Tokina 16-28/2.8 and 17-35/4. I have heard better things about the 16-28 then the 17-35 though.

From the looks of your signature, you don't have the Sigma 12-24. Have you used it in the past?

I do like some of what I'm reading about it, but I'm concerned about how well the Lee Filters foundation kit would work with it. From what I've read, the filter cap holder for this lens has the filter threads. What I've been able to learn about the lens cap holder is that it is "light metal." I don't yet know how firmly it attaches to the lens. I read something about the lens requiring a 105mm filter, so I'm not sure if the Sigma fits into my "big picture" plan.

I still have to investigate the rest of the options you mentioned.

Can you realistically think of any circumstance where you would use the crop body over the 6D for landscape? Or any other wide use for that matter? No? of course not. So get the ultrawide that best fits your proposed use for the 6D.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16701572
Can you realistically think of any circumstance where you would use the crop body over the 6D for landscape? Or any other wide use for that matter? No? of course not. So get the ultrawide that best fits your proposed use for the 6D.

Presently, I would not choose my 70D over my 6D for landscapes.

In the event I had a crop astro camera, I was shooting at night, and there was an object in the sky that would benefit from the crop astro camera's uv filter exclusion (that I was hoping to capture in addition to the landscape) then I would choose the crop over the full frame. Admittedly, those circumstances would probably be pretty rare in the event I actually had a crop astro camera, and I presently don't.

The 17-40 on the 6D is amazing. I still need to focus adjust both ends, but the color and IQ is a big step up from the 10-22 and crop. There's something inherently unique to the 17-40 in regard to color and microcontrast. It's a great landscape lens because of this.

neacail wrote in post #16701602
Presently, I would not choose my 70D over my 6D for landscapes.

In the event I had a crop astro camera, I was shooting at night, and there was an object in the sky that would benefit from the crop astro camera's uv filter exclusion (that I was hoping to capture in addition to the landscape) then I would choose the crop over the full frame. Admittedly, those circumstances would probably be pretty rare in the event I actually had a crop astro camera, and I presently don't.

But you get the point that holding onto the idea of getting an ultra wide for the 70D is sort of silly. Each of the two bodies you have are useful in different ways. The 6D for things that are still and where wide angle is helpful. The 70D for times when extra "reach" is helpful, and perhaps if the focusing system is better, moving things. Spending any money to make the crop body wider is wasted. Luckily that means not investing in new EF-S lenses as they only really cater to wide end, there is no real need for an EF-S lens that starts above 18 on the zoom range.

I find the 17-40 plenty wide enough on my crop - any wider and I'm shooting a pano anyways, so I don't worry as much about distortion when stitching. JMHO.

Mike55 wrote in post #16701854
The 17-40 on the 6D is amazing. I still need to focus adjust both ends, but the color and IQ is a big step up from the 10-22 and crop. There's something inherently unique to the 17-40 in regard to color and microcontrast. It's a great landscape lens because of this.

I've just gone through all of the image samples on the website (pages and pages of them!). I'm pretty impressed.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16701868
But you get the point that holding onto the idea of getting an ultra wide for the 70D is sort of silly. Each of the two bodies you have are useful in different ways. The 6D for things that are still and where wide angle is helpful. The 70D for times when extra "reach" is helpful, and perhaps if the focusing system is better, moving things. Spending any money to make the crop body wider is wasted. Luckily that means not investing in new EF-S lenses as they only really cater to wide end, there is no real need for an EF-S lens that starts above 18 on the zoom range.

Yes, I think so. I can't really stomach the thought of buying an EF-S lens (which is mostly because I don't trust Canon ).

ksbal wrote in post #16702036
I find the 17-40 plenty wide enough on my crop - any wider and I'm shooting a pano anyways, so I don't worry as much about distortion when stitching. JMHO.

As I'd be running the second camera at the workshop mostly for comparison purposes, I'm now thinking that the 17-40 might be suitable.

I have found that EF-M, EF-S and EF are not mutually exclusive. Now that I have the M, a 650D and the 6D, I mix and choose depending on the need and mood. For example, I am set to go on a trip to Myanmar shortly. What am I taking? The M and the 650D with one EF-M, one EF-S and one EF lens. Choice is there to enrich your life, not to pigeon-hole you.

I love my 17-40 and have used it a ton for landscapes. Its also much cheaper than the 16-35 which for me doesn't offer much advantage at all since I shoot at f/8 or so all the time on the 17-40 anyway. I'm more waiting for a 14-24 or even wider type lens to come out. Then I will probably jump onto that. For now the 17-40 is my best bang for the buck WA.

Here's how I see it.

In a 2 camera situation where one is FF and the other is a crop, most will use the tele on the crop, and uwa / walkaround on the FF...

If you opt to want to use a UWA on crop, then it comes down to budget and willingness to purchase one exclusively for your crop, because as you said the 17-40 or 16-35 will not be wide enough.

I have both crop and FF, and I opted to buy the 11-16, because I can use it on both.. I able to use 15-16 on the FF, which takes me wider than my 17-40, if need be.

Photography, decisions, compromises, all the time.

I don't do landscapes, but I thought that a UWA zoom would give me a new challenge and a fresh perspective. I chose the Sigma 8-16 which has an image circle designed for APS-C sensors, but of course can be mounted on a FF. It is a rectilinear lens (not a fish-eye), so on the FF you get an 8mm image with a severe need to crop the vignette.

The detail you get from this lens is fantastic. This photo was from my first set of test photos. I uploaded it by mistake in full detail in Photobucket. To get there, click on the photo and then click on the little magnifying glass icon at the lower right corner in each subsequent image.

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …40dc_zpsfee3fcf​d.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zps047cb14​e.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …30DT_zpsdb9dc49​4.jpg.html

Thanks for the tips and suggestions, everyone.

I've firmly decided on the 17-40 to fill in the wide focal length zoom hole in my gear. I've spent a lot of time reviewing images, and there is something about that lens that I'm just loving. I can't really put my finger on it, but when I started reviewing images the answer became really clear to me.

That said, I'm thinking I might pick up the 10-22 as well. I'd use it for the workshop, but after that it would go into the "family bag." I don't ever sell my old gear. When I replace something, or don't use something often, it goes into the "family bag." My eldest son (20-years-old) is using the family bag right now, and the only digital body in it is a T1i. The 6D won't wind up in that bag for at least a couple of years, so the 10-22 would probably get quite a bit of use. After #1 son has purchased his own gear, the family bag will go to #2 son (who is only 5-years-old, so #1 son has plenty of time to build his own kit).

Isn't the 17-40 a f4 lens?? If so, not ideal for night photography.