10-22, 17-40 or 30D?

So, I am going to Yosemite in July. I got some great info. here and was told I could rent a 10-22 in Yosemite. Great, everything was perfect. Then my husband tells me just to buy the lens. That should be great, but now I am totally over thinking this which has me all frustrated. In my crazy/ obsessive way of thinking, here is my dilemma. I have the XT and I like it. I like the picture quality, it is just that it is small and not very comfy for me to hold. Of course I have been thinking about a battery grip, but never bought one because I always thought of upgrading to the 20D and now the 30D. So if I didn't buy the 10-22 and sold my rebel, that would almost give me enough to buy the 30D. So why am I confused? Well now I am thinking that maybe I should get the 17-40 L. Thats a quality lens and I THINK I would use it more than the 10-22. I am not really big into shooting landscapes. But with the lenses I have would the 17-40 be a waste? I have the 17-85, is the L that much better? I totally confusing myself! Just wanted to use you guys as my sounding board and get some input.

Crazy in San Diego.....

You won't see much benefit from a 30D vs XT in image Qual terms, just in handling. For mostly landscape I would put up with the handling for the good glass.

A battery grip and a 17-40 would be very nice. I would sell the 17-85mm because really you won't need it and you have a very set of nice kit indeed. The 17-40 on a crop body makes a great walkaround, and you can have the 50mm, or one of the others you have, in your pocket if you need it.

I'd agree. Get a battery grip and that will pretty much sort out the handling issue. Image quality between your XT and a 20D or 30D will be the same. Eventually even the 30D will be an old , obsolete camera but The 17-40 L will be a great lens for many many years - and it will fit future Eos cameras too.
I tried both the 17-40 and the 10-22 out for size in my local camera store, and decided the 10-22 was just too wide and extreme, and that I would not get a lot of use from it. So I got the 17-40 instead. It makes a great walk-about lens for my needs as Condyk says, though might not be so good for you. what range do you find yourself mostly using with your current lens? My 17-40 has not been off the camera for 3 months.
I think most people would advise you to get the good lenses you want before 'upgrading' to a camera that really is pretty similar.

girliegirl61904 wrote:
So, I am going to Yosemite in July. I got some great info. here and was told I could rent a 10-22 in Yosemite. Great, everything was perfect. Then my husband tells me just to buy the lens. That should be great, but now I am totally over thinking this which has me all frustrated. In my crazy/ obsessive way of thinking, here is my dilemma. I have the XT and I like it. I like the picture quality, it is just that it is small and not very comfy for me to hold. Of course I have been thinking about a battery grip, but never bought one because I always thought of upgrading to the 20D and now the 30D. So if I didn't buy the 10-22 and sold my rebel, that would almost give me enough to buy the 30D. So why am I confused? Well now I am thinking that maybe I should get the 17-40 L. Thats a quality lens and I THINK I would use it more than the 10-22. I am not really big into shooting landscapes. But with the lenses I have would the 17-40 be a waste? I have the 17-85, is the L that much better? I totally confusing myself! Just wanted to use you guys as my sounding board and get some input.

Crazy in San Diego.....

Go out and get hold of a 30D and handle it. Thatr is the only way you can tell whether you want to spend the money on lenses or camera at this stage.

How a camera FEEL in your hand can make a huge diference to some (me included)
Take a clkean CF card into the store and shoot it full out of the camera shop door ona 17-40 - look at the results at home. I personally don't rate the 1022 but ther are those who do

So you could get the 30D and rant the 1-22 until you can afford the 17-40 to go with it!

buy the lens ...upgrade later ..the 30d isnt that big of jump

I'm for the grip and lens. The lens will last you a long time, alot longer than any body would. Wait for the next model to be released which hopefully gives you a better bang for the buck.

I just upgraded from XT to 30D - do as I say, not as I do

I do like the 30D alot better than the XT but not because it takes better pictures, it doesn't. But rather because its alot easier for me to use than the XT was. The XT had too many buttons to press to change settins. With the 30D everything is right there for you. i.e. I don't need to look at the LCD any longer to change settings.

Thanks to for all the great advice!

I am pretty sure that I have made up my mind. I am going to get the 17-40 AND the 30D!! I wish I think I am going to go with the lens. That was what I was leaning towards anyway, but the thought of a new camera was really tempting me. I am so glad that I found this forum!

I tell ya what, I have owned both and now that I have the Mk2 I wish I could still have the 10-22, that is a fantasic lens IMO. I picked it up in downtown Oceanside and these were my first test shots within a hour of owning that lens. You be the judge. I don't even consider my 17-40 as an L, images from it just don't do anything for me, there OK but nothing close the the 10-22......but that's just me. Don't let that red ring affect your choice.

10-22 link
http://www.pbase.com/b​lue622/1022_photos

Neither the 17-40 nor the 30D will enable you to take many pictures that you can't already take with the XT and the 17-85.

The 17-40 has a small optical quality advantage over the 17-85, but it does not have as much zoom range on the telephoto end and it does not have IS. I have the 17-40 and it is one of my least favorite lenses. It is a full stop slower than my f/2.8 lenses, does not go long enough for a good general purpose lens and the optical quality, while good, is not exceptional. If I had the 17-85 and was going to upgrade, I would wait until I could afford the new 17-55 f/2.8 IS EF-S. That lens will outperform the 17-40 in many ways. It is longer, faster, has IS and is probably better optically.

The 30D has some advantages over the XT for tracking moving subjects, spot metering and firing rapid burst of images. There may be a bit less noise at high ISO. If you don't need those freatures, the 30 is not likely to improve your photography. Most good pictures taken with the XT would not be noticeably better if taken with the 30D. In my opinion, good lenses last longer than digital cameras so I would hold off upgrading my camera until a new model came out that had functions I could not do without.

That leaves the 10-22. If you find that you need something that goes wider than the 17-85, the 10-22 is one of the best solutions available. If you don't find yourself limited by the wide end of the 17-85, getting the 10-22 would be a waste of money unless you are willing to add some new creative skills to your vision.

SeanH...just when I thought I had it figured out!

Did you get it at Oceanside telescope and photo or something like that? I buy everything from Calumet in Escondido, I just love them there.

Hopefully my decision will come in my dreams.

Thanks for the input!

girliegirl61904 wrote:
SeanH...just when I thought I had it figured out!

Did you get it at Oceanside telescope and photo or something like that? I buy everything from Calumet in Escondido, I just love them there.

Hopefully my decision will come in my dreams.

Thanks for the input!

Yea I got it from OPT, but I normally shop the same place you do, I live about 5 min from that place. I stop in there at least once a week just to check out the "toys". Tom's a cool guy, when I bought my Epson 2400 I was so excited I forgot to buy paper, so when I walked back in the tell him he just gave me a free pack........pretty cool considering it's 30 bucks.

Maybe talk to those guys and see what they will do about renting both lenses.........maybe work that into the deal when you buy the 30D.......cause I know Tom would go $1349.00 on the 30D, tell him to throw in a weekend rental of the 10-22 & 17-40 then make you own choice.

good luck,
Sean

The 17-40 is a far superior lens than the 17-85. I owned the 17-85 and sold it. The 17-85 has bad CA and barrel distortion but mainly the CA bugged me. The 17-40 does have some BD with it also but can be corrected using PT Lens. I also bought a Tokina 12-24. I didn't like the landscape shots at 12mm honestly. You get a bunch of stuff in your photo but the detail just isn't there. A tree has the shape of a tree but not the detail I wanted. I prefered 15mm shots the most. So the 17-40 was a great fit for me. You will need a filter on front of the 17-40 because that is how it is sealed from dust. Be sure to get a wired remote release from ebay for $15 (cheap knock-off Addit brand, works great) and take your tripod or at least a monopod. If not a polarizer then go for a Grad ND filter.

Tom is super cool! That guy is a Photoshop MASTER! I don't go in there very often, if I did I would be homeless (and husbandless). but whenever I make a major purchase I try and do it with Tom.

What a small world

My tuppence worth: Go for the battery grip and 17-40L. I have both the 10-22 and the 17-40 and if you're not big into landscapes then it has to be the 17-40. & the the rebel. It's a superb lens for contrast/color and sharpness and a great walkabout lens. I think the 10-22 could restrict you a little if you don't do a lot of landscapes, I might be wrong as everyone is different but I think it's too wide as a walkaround. It suffers from a bit of Chromatic Aberation too and it's not quite as sharp as the 17-40. Stopped down to f8-f10 on a good day it's comparable. But for quick shooting with no worries the 17-40 is king. (sharp wide open too)
Plus you can keep it if you ever feel the need to go full frame.