7mm... is it worth it?

I had a 40D for years. Had a 17-40mm even longer. Really nice copy, too. Eventually sold the 17-40 a couple years ago and bought a 10-22 for the crop body.

I have recently upgraded to a 6D FF, and given my 40D to my niece (a young aspiring photographer, though I did not give her the 10-22, she already had lenses for her T<something> ).

Obviously, I cannot use the EF-S 10-22 on my 6D. I loved my previous 17-40, but I also have a 24-105 which covers most of the range. I'm debating whether the extra 7mm on the wide end is worth it.

Help me think this out. What would be some pros and cons?

In the interest of full honesty, while I loved my previous 17-40, I didn't use it all that much as the extra 7mm was rarely needed. My 24-105 is my "walk around" lens. So maybe I just answered my own question, eh?

It depends on what you like to shoot. 24mm is often sufficient on a FF. I rarely shoot wider than that. I will say that while 7mm doesn't sound like a lot, you will notice its absence on the wide end of the focal length much more than on the tele end. If you shoot mostly people, then I think you're set with the 24-105. If, OTOH, you like shooting scenics and architecture, then you have to at least consider something wider. If you're using lightroom, just filter your library by focal length and review the results--let the stats guide you. If 24mm doesn't rank very high for your 6d (or 10mm on your 40d) compared to the longer focal lengths, I wouldn't bother with an UWA.

It's only worth it if you find you need to shoot a little wider when you're using your 24-105mm. To me, the difference between the two (the 7mm) is huge...I'd get one if I were in your situation, but then again I'm going through a phase where I'd like to shoot wide instead of standard/telephoto.

tdlavigne wrote in post #17629242
To me, the difference between the two (the 7mm) is huge...

Ditto. It's like talking about whether you need a 35mm lens if you're fine with a 50mm. But, as far as the 17-40mm itself goes... well it's long in the tooth to say the least. I would sooner recommend the 16-35 f/4 IS, as it's superior in every aspect that matters, but you'd be duplicating the 24-35mm range. You could grab a Zeiss prime, like the 21mm or 18mm, but those are $1200~1500.

One alternative,especially if you have rare need for it, is to buy a cheapish prime - I have a 14mm f/2.8 samyang (non fisheye). Cheaper because it is a manual lens, however focus is not so difficult at short focal lengths.

Distortion isn't a big problem and Lightroom (and other software) allows download of lens correction info for this (and most other) lenses so you can get some pretty low distortion images.

I stuck a focus confirm chip on, which does help - but you do need a recent version to be compatible with recent Canon bodies.

Sound like you might not need to go as far as 14mm. I also have the 17-40mm.

the 7mm is huge if you like the distorted wide angle look. if not shooting and combining panoramas in post may produce acceptable results if you just want a wider field of view.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #17629194
So maybe I just answered my own question, eh?

Yes.

I have the 10-22mm because I knew it made striking pictures, but the reality is that I rarely use the lens. It sounds like you are similar. Don't get an ultrawide - unless your needs change, of course.

As long as you're keeping the 10-22, it is possible to use with a FF. Pop the rubber piece off the back, and you can us it from 12-22mm (I stay above 14mm just to be safe, ensuring the mirror won't hit it). If you really need wider than 24, it's an option. That piece will pop right back on.

17mm is great on FF. And besides 10mm on crop is 16mm. So you were almost there already.

imho, there is no correct answer to this question - beyond the simple admonition to purchase a lens or lenses which extend your capabilities and suit your preferences and shooting style or methods.

personally, I view my lenses like children (big or little, young or old). they each have distinct personalities, capabilities and limitations. there's much more than simple focal length coverage. for example, 2 of my favorite portrait lenses - both 85mm - could hardly be more different (the Helios 40-2 f1.5 and canon's f1.8 usm). two very very capable lenses - but the images they produce are SO different.

anyhow, what works for me, may not work for you. what I like, you may find useless and vice verse.

for me, as I live on a bank of a tidal river, I frequently work with both extremes in focal lengths (the very short - ultrawides and fisheyes and the ultra long, with and without extenders) often and regularly.

for landscape compositions, I really could not work without my fisheyes and ultrawides. I own the lenses you discuss. I find the 24-105mm L to be a slightly above average "walk around/general purpose lens" for smallish events, gatherings, street festivals, etc. - I do not consider 24mm nearly wide enough for landscape or architectural compositions. imho, the 17-40mm L would be the minimum (on the wide side) for such purposes. Hint - my next 2 major lens purchases will be the 100-400mm II, and the amazing 11-24mm (presuming I live long enough to save the king's ransome required for that duo).

but for landscape & architectural, I tend to reach for a prime lens: the newer version (removable hood) Samyang 8mm MF, nikon mount with AF chipped adapter, (hyperfocus on a FE &/or UWA almost makes autofocus irrelevant) & just crop the vignetting - which yields a true 8mm FOV on a FF sensor! - or it's cousin the 14mm Rokinon f2.8 - talk about a fun lens - fantastic for striking architecturals. couldn't imagine shooting without these - or my 2 FF FE's - canon's 15mm & the fun little zenitar.

on a crop body, there's the already mentioned Samyang 8mm and the ef-s 10-22 (16-35mm equiv. FL) or the newer, lighter ef-s 10-18mm stm (probably my next addition) - a sweet (my wife loves this dslr) match for an SL1 body. I also frequently carry a 70D mounted with a tamy 16-300mm vc pzd macro. optically a bit soft at both ends, but extreme range and flexibility with useable images (mostly). not a bad combo to tuck behind the seat of your car - next to my fuji x100s. all aps-c sensor cameras.

the long side (400mm & above) is another adventure - but I'll spare you that saga - as you seem mostly focused on the wide side. for which, I would really encourage you to explore a relatively inexpensive prime - say the Samyang/Rokinon/etc. 14mm f2.8. It's high quality optics combined with hyper-focal MF settings, produce consistently high quality images - - and provide a very nice platform to learn the compositional methods needed for great ultra wide images. I know several photographers who seem almost intimidated by these short focal length lenses. personally, my reaction is just the opposite. I really, really, really like WORKING with them - and it requires some thought, imagination, creativity, etc. - but the images - from banal and stupid (I've thousands of these!) to really interesting. and sometimes, not much in between?

alternatively, if money is no concern and your budget is generous, pick up the Carl Zeiss 15mm and 21mm gems and work on your hyper-focus MF technique (pretty easy stuff, really) - you'll be working with lenses as close to perfection as can be found this side of the otus offerings.

I would seriously consider NOT using zooms - while developing fundamental skills - until you gain experience, confidence, a handful of tricks and concepts - in short, your compositional capabilities with these very different lenses. IMHO, the flexibility provided by a zoom lens HELPS you avoid the very process that, imho, unlocks your creativity! Ironically. shooting and composing with fisheyes and uwa's are very different from rocking a 35mm or 50mm perspective. Then again - ymmv. as what works for me - may not for you.

my final suggestion - insanity generally works. look around. have some fun, go weird, stupid, silly. unlock your imagination and no matter what else happens, remember you're having fun. unless you're harvesting a lot more $$ than I!!

good luck & enjoy.

The 10-22 worked quite well for me with my trusty ol' 30D when doing landscape-type photos. Here in my area we have a lot of areas that do benefit from wide-angle shooting!

Unfortunately, this was one of a few APS-C lenses that disappeared when my daughter had a bag of stuff stolen, but that's another story...

At any rate, by then I was using the 5D Classic, and later the 1DM3, and for those bodies my wide angle 16-35 fit the bill, not just for the landscape stuff, but also there were times doing some city/street photography when I grabbed the 16-35 to capture a scene, and it served well!

I've occasionally grabbed a prime when I'm comfortable with a fixed focal length when I "visualize" the scene and how I want to capture it. In fact I owned the EF 80 f/1.2 for some "special" shooting and getting some interesting stuff shooting wide open, and hey, I still have my trusty ol' 100mm Macro lens, for sute!

That being said, though, my all-purpose walk-around lens has been the 24-105, and even though times of financial distress have forced me to sell some of my "best" gear, I've kept the 24-105, the 100-400, and the 100 Macro lens, not to mention my "old" 5DC and 30D!!

Good responses. Thanks!

photoguy6405 wrote in post #17629194
I had a 40D for years. Had a 17-40mm even longer. Really nice copy, too. Eventually sold the 17-40 a couple years ago and bought a 10-22 for the crop body.

I have recently upgraded to a 6D FF, and given my 40D to my niece (a young aspiring photographer, though I did not give her the 10-22, she already had lenses for her T<something> ).

Obviously, I cannot use the EF-S 10-22 on my 6D. I loved my previous 17-40, but I also have a 24-105 which covers most of the range. I'm debating whether the extra 7mm on the wide end is worth it.

Help me think this out. What would be some pros and cons?

In the interest of full honesty, while I loved my previous 17-40, I didn't use it all that much as the extra 7mm was rarely needed. My 24-105 is my "walk around" lens. So maybe I just answered my own question, eh?

Heya,

This is entirely your preference.

Personally, I'd rather have the 17-40 for walk around and landscape, than the 24-105. But for what I like to do, and where I shoot, I like wider angles. If I were on a trip to the mountains or any where with huge geological structure, or massive buildings, I'd probably not want the ultrawide and would prefer more telephoto options, so as to not dwarf the majesty of the large. But that's a different point.

For you, if you never really spent time at 17mm, then maybe 24mm is fine for you. In which case, the 24-105 is fine.

Another option, if you want to keep doing what you're doing and have an ultrawide option, is just grab a Rokinon 14mm. It's cheaper than a 17-40, gives you an ultrawide, and it's performance is stellar, plus it's fast (F2.8) and sharp wide open. Then you don't have to wonder about the compromise of 24-105 and 17-40 and instead you have 14mm, 24-105mm covered.

Very best,