10-22, 17-40 or 30D?

If you're thinking about a 10-22, I'd buy the Sigma 10-20. That's a great lens nad has some of the best reviews for a lens in this range.

All except for the barrel distortion..... where the canon blows it's doors off.

Have you looked at the Sigma 10-20MM? That's a good lens for your wide shots.

I was just in the same boat. 30D, or xt and 70-200 f4L. Just pulled the trigger @ B&H on the xt and lens. Cheaper than the 30D body alone by $100, not counting the $140 I'll get back from Canon next year when they finally approve the rebate.

it depends on whether the handling issues of the XT really really affect you that much.
between the lenses, my opinion is to get the 17-40L, and if yo really need the 10-22 for Yostemite, then rent it there. But the 17-40 is a better walkaround, where as the 10-22 is very very extreme wide angle, so it probably won't be used as much, depending on your style of shooting. IMO, you don't want to get too many Ef-s lenses, if you wish to upgrade in the future. You can sell it, but you must understand that it will be at a loss, a small loss none the less. I think the L would be a great addition to your kit, and is also where I am headed.
But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you need the ultrawide now, get it. If not, and you won't use it as much, get the L. But glass is a much better investment than a camera body, and most of the 30d's technology is from the 20d, which is over 2 years old. I don't think it is worth the upgrade from the XT, as the picture quality is much the same. It really depends on just how much the XT bugs you.

I just can't enjoy taking pictures if the camera doesn't feel right. I tried the XT and it felt too small. Almost felt like my G series camera except heavier. That's how I based on picking between XT and 30D. It's priceless to have the feeling of an dSLR.

Remember ScottE's comment on the 17-55 EFS f2.8. It will get you a good range, top quality and when you do upgrade to a 20D-30D, you will have the f2.8 for the more precise focus available with 2.8 or faster lens with these cameras. My wife loves her 30D. but she upgraded from the orig. DRebel. Thats an upgrade!

Not to muddy things up a bit, but the 10-22mm is to mimic the range that the 17-40mm would have on a film/FF camera. I just don't think 17-40 on a cropped sensor is wide enough.

Just the two cents from someone who owns all of them at the moment (apart from the 10-22 seeking a new home)...

17-40 vs 17-85 - there's actually a reason why my 17-85 is not for sale at the moment because I really like that lens. IS and the reach is fantastic. Optical quality is really quite decent, you just have to know how to manage that lens. It is a little weak from 17-24mm, so stop down to f/5.6 and shoot. For the rest of its range it is already f/5.6 so just shoot and you can expect GOOD quality from 24-85mm. (coming from someone who owns the 24-105 f/4L too)

17-40 build quality is definitely better, but reach is too short on the 350D (or other crop cameras). Image quality is excellent when shot wide open, very much representative of L lenses.

10-22 is FANTASTICALLY wide and optical quality is way up there with its L cousins. It is one superb lens. I 'see' a lot of things in ultra wide, however this is personal, some people find it a bit too wide. Try it first, visit the local camera shop or rent it for a day BEFORE your trip. I put it on my camera and it blew me away at first glance (my lens buying criteria).

If I was shooting on a crop camera, I would remain with my 10-22 and 17-85. The 17-40 will simply duplicate focal lengths without giving you enough in return to justify its price tag. Especially now that the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is out - that is one utterly SUPERB lens.

My policy is glass first, bodies later. The 350D is a tremendously capable camera, and I value its light weight while walking, over the capabilities of the 20D. (Unloading mine at the moment.. money is where the mouth is, or rather, hoping to get some money once it sells )

So.. why did I duplicate my lenses then?

.....I'm the idiot who bought a 5D, which is full frame, not EF-S compatible

The 17-40 on a full frame then becomes a true ultrawide, realizing its full potential (and that's a lot of potential, it is REALLY beautiful), becoming a replacement for my 10-22 (that's why it's leaving).

I'm also keeping my 17-85 IS USM to pair with the 350D as a great walkaround general purpose shooting combo because it is that good.


I'm probably not helping the purchasing decision with all of the above, so let me try.. if you want the 30D, go ahead and get it. Rent the 10-22 for a while, experience the true meaning of ULTRA wide. If you like it, buy it instead of the 17-40. If you prefer the 17-40 after that, then go for it.


SeanH: Nice photos! You could always keep a cheap 350D around for that lens.. plus it's light weight makes it really enjoyable to walk around with. I'm keeping my 350D as a virtual 'teleconverter' for the long lens, as well as the lightweight walkaround and for my EF-S 60 macro.

I fid that, after buying my 10-22 on my 1.6 crop body, I simply no longer use my 17-40 and my girlfriend has nicked it

No more struggling to fit things in if you shoot landscape or buildings etc - if i need a longer length my 50 1.4 does the trick for me.