10-22 or 17-40L do u need both?

I have the 24-105 and love it - great lens - definitely the best I have owned. That being said, while I appreciate the extra length, it is not wide enough in many indoor or landscape situations. I often debate selling it and buying one of the 17-40 or similar range lenses plus an 85 1.8 for low light and portrait work. Heck, might even be able to squeeze in a 30 1.4 for a little more cash...but then I would have to carry two or three lenses instead of one...

No matter what you decide you will have doubts and probably change your mind You have started down the slippery lens slope!!

I have both and use both. Even though they do overlap they are two totally different lens. I constantly find myself going back to the 17-40 but when a wider focal range is needed the 10-22 serves up extremely well.

10mm can be a wonderful thing:

i don't think you will need both. although you could use both - just depends on how you want to build your lens setup.

i mean, really, you can have many many combinations depending on your needs.

Assuming you are not shooting weddings or people. and you want scenery or landscape, then the 10-22 is sooooo much better than the 17-40. I can fit the whole room in a picture, or the whole beach/mountain/buildin​g etc.

Try shooting at 10mm and you will never look back.

If, however, you want to shoot people, then the 17-40 is better.

I have owned and liked both - but it's the 10-22 for me

FIREWALLROB wrote in post #2016676
I have owned and liked both - but it's the 10-22 for me

It is for you, but it is for sale in your signature?

A good minimal pairing would be the 10-22 and the 24-105 or 24-70. If you do lots of landscape you may still want a 17-40 which will be sharper at 17-24 than the 10-22, also then makes a good std zoom for APS-C and also leaves you equiped for full frame ultra wide if you go that way.

RedWingNut wrote in post #2016702
It is for you, but it is for sale in your signature?

All my camera stuff is for sale

But I saved the best for last

I have the 10-22 and 24-105. The quality, contrast and color from these 2 lenses are great. Sometimes, 24mm isn't wide enough on a 1.6 body. Gotta go 10-22 for some shots! You won't regret buying it.

mistry wrote in post #2016252
As the title say, do I need both. So far I have the kit lens and a 50mm 1.8

When I got my nifty i realised how bad the kit was, so was looking to replace it, and I love the effects that can be achieved with the 10-22 so have arranged to buy one, but have also found a good deal on a 17-40L, So the question is do you need both? or would I be better getting something like the 17-85 IS?

Thanks in advance

No person can tell you which one you need or if you need both...only you can answer that question based on your needs, priorities, budget etc.
If you wanna have a superwide angle on your 30D, the 17-40 does not cut it. The only Canon offering that does that is the 10-22.

If moderately WA to standard FL is your priority, then the 17-40 is your lens. Same if you plan to go FF or 1.3 FOVCF soon.

Thanks for your respnses guys.

Like I said before I don't need the 10-22, I just love the idea of it, and it appeals to me. The real need is a replacement for the kit lens. So I'm fairley set on a 24-105 and the 10-22 (subject to seeing them in the shop).
The reason the 17-40 was an option was the good deal I was offered and I have a rebate voucher for £70 making it a very good deal.
I don't have a voucher for the 24-105, but it's best to get the right lens in my mind.

Been said, but only you can tell.

I have the (excellent) Tamron 17-50 and find 17mm limiting on occasion. So I have my eye on the Sigma 10-20, very probably will snag it today.

Wazza wrote in post #2016286
I have a 17-40L, plus a couple of other cheapos, then upgraded and bought a Sigma 10-20 at the wide end. I found I only use one or the other, and wonder just why I spent so much money on two pretty similar lens. In reality I would probably prefer just the 17-40L, and have a 1.3x crop body
(using 20D)

The 20D is a 1.6x Crop body. 5D is 1.3 as is all the 1D series whcih people call FF.

ejwebb wrote in post #2016629
I have the 24-105 and love it - great lens - definitely the best I have owned. That being said, while I appreciate the extra length, it is not wide enough in many indoor or landscape situations. I often debate selling it and buying one of the 17-40 or similar range lenses plus an 85 1.8 for low light and portrait work. Heck, might even be able to squeeze in a 30 1.4 for a little more cash...but then I would have to carry two or three lenses instead of one...

No matter what you decide you will have doubts and probably change your mind You have started down the slippery lens slope!!

i bought the 17-40. on paper the SWA looks more attractive but in real life i prefer about 24mm maximum.

i buy lenses i'll use without worrying about filling gaps and overlap and things like that.

for example, i use my 24-70 most of the time but i can also use the 17-40 for a walkaround especially if there are landscapes involved.

now, since i'm not really a SWA kinda guy i may be hesitant to swap to a 10-20 or 12-24 for a few shots and go ahead and fudge with the 24-70.

i'd be less hesitant to swap to the 17-40 tho.

i think some guys really like and use their SWA lenses, and i'll bet others get used very little and therefore really reduce coverage.

i hope that makes some sort of sense .

ed rader

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2017231
The 20D is a 1.6x Crop body. 5D is 1.3 as is all the 1D series whcih people call FF.

Huh?...FF means Full frame! This means no crop not 1.3x or 1.6x, but the total equivalent of a 35mm frame.

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2017231
The 20D is a 1.6x Crop body. 5D is 1.3 as is all the 1D series whcih people call FF.

the 5D is Full Frame not 1.3x.