17-40L or 10-22?

This is my first post, so please forgive me if I've missed this comparison somewhere on the forum. Obviously, I own the XT, and I'm looking primarily for a good landscape lens. I don't want a prime, as it's too difficult to compose from a tripod in sometimes limited space on a trail. I'm not interested in the artsy aspect of distortion at wide angles - I want the sharpest, most colorful photo I can get. I've looked at dozens of images taken with both lenses, and there are good and bad examples of each. Taking this into consideration, I'd like to hear from someone who owns both lenses, if possible.

Second, will I notice a dramatic difference in image quality between the kit lens and one of the above? I shoot nearly everything on a tripod with remote shutter release, and I'm interested in larger photos. I have a couple of 16x20's and 30x36's on my wall taken with the kit lens that are pretty decent, but I want something that's markedly better. Thanks.

Well if you wanna go wide and plan on sticking with a crop body for a while get the 10-22. If you plan on going FF get the 17-40 L.

You should notice a large difference between the kit and these two lenses. Unless, you have a GREAT copy of the kit lens.

if you have a 1.6 crop camera. 10-22 is pretty ovious choice.

If you use film of FF digital.. then go 17-40.

Ive used both lenses with my 20D camera, the 17-40 just was not wide enought.. Its a greast lens, but if you are looking for a wide angle, the choice is pretty simple IMO.

I wish i could have kept both, but i didnt. 17-40 made a great all around lens, for example going out to some familys house for a b-day party. but i got a Tamron for that. 10-22 is in a class of its own for 1.6 crop cameras.

Thank you both for your input. I have been leaning toward the 10-22 but have been unable to make a final decision. We're headed to the Grand Canyon in a few months, and I want to bring back some wall hangers.

One lens I do not recommend is the 17-40. I have one and it stays home most of the time because the 17-55 IS is a better and more useful lens.

The 10-22 is also a good lens. I would not want to be without mine, but if I was buying one lens at a time I would get the 17-55 first and the 10-22 later. However, since you already have the kit lens and do not sound too unhappy with it, the 10-22 may be a better choice for you since you can pair it with the kit lens to get super-wide to short telephoto coverage.

I'd just like to point out that landscape work does not require a super-wide lens. It just doesn't. In fact, a lot of good work is done with telephotos. Something like the 17-40 will probably have a lot more versatility on a 1.6x .

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2165525
I'd just like to point out that landscape work does not require a super-wide lens. It just doesn't. In fact, a lot of good work is done with telephotos. Something like the 17-40 will probably have a lot more versatility on a 1.6x .

i agree.

the 17-40 is a great landscape lens that also doubles as a walkaround and is even long enough for half-body portraits.

i see the 10-22 more as a specialty lens that frankly i wouldn't use much.

i would prefer a true 24mm (15mm) on my 20d but i'll make due with 27mm for now so i own the 17-40L.

a huge advantage of FF is it gives you a true 24mm (24-70L & 24-105L) without forcing you to buy a SWA.

and 24mm is as wide as i need.

ed rader

I chose the 10-22 over the 17-40 and for me it was the right choice. My wife & I were hiking in Joshua Tree National Park last week and I used the 10-22 probably 60% of the time and it looks like the vast majority of the time I was using focal lengths less than 17mm. If you buy the 10-22 make sure you buy the lens hood as well and be carefull with polarizing filters as they will cause vignetting in the 10-15mm range (at least mine does, using a Hoya super pro 1 HMC filter). Its fine from 15-22mm.

sugarzebra wrote in post #2165620
be carefull with polarizing filters as they will cause vignetting in the 10-15mm range (at least mine does, using a Hoya super pro 1 HMC filter). Its fine from 15-22mm.

I have the Hoya Super Pro1 Digital Circular Polarizer (slim type) and NO vignetting at all, not even at 10mm ...

Grand Canyon on a crop?
10-22.
Also consider the Sigma 10-20.

sugarzebra wrote in post #2165620
If you buy the 10-22 make sure you buy the lens hood as well...

At such wide angles, does the lens hood do anything other than maybe the occasional concussion protection? The hood looks pretty darn thin. And using a polarizer becomes a lot easier without the hood getting in the way of your hand.

XTuzer wrote in post #2163111
This is my first post, so please forgive me if I've missed this comparison somewhere on the forum. Obviously, I own the XT, and I'm looking primarily for a good landscape lens. I don't want a prime, as it's too difficult to compose from a tripod in sometimes limited space on a trail. I'm not interested in the artsy aspect of distortion at wide angles - I want the sharpest, most colorful photo I can get. I've looked at dozens of images taken with both lenses, and there are good and bad examples of each. Taking this into consideration, I'd like to hear from someone who owns both lenses, if possible.

Second, will I notice a dramatic difference in image quality between the kit lens and one of the above? I shoot nearly everything on a tripod with remote shutter release, and I'm interested in larger photos. I have a couple of 16x20's and 30x36's on my wall taken with the kit lens that are pretty decent, but I want something that's markedly better. Thanks.

The 10-22 is an excelent lens and good for landscapes although the 17-40 is also very good for landscapes.

The kit lens is not too bad well stopped down, specially at the wide end, but the 17-40 should give much better sharpness in the corners, the 10-22 will also show an improvement but less marked in the lengths in common with the kit lens.

A main advantage of either lens over the kit lens is faster AF, full time manual focus and a distance readout so can focus hyperfocally, this is essential for landscape work and a major handicap of the kit lens.

I own both lenses. Although I enjoy the 10-22 very much I think that overall you would be happier with the 17-40 for landscape especially since you are not interested in the effects produced by a super wide lens

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2163174
Well if you wanna go wide and plan on sticking with a crop body for a while get the 10-22. If you plan on going FF get the 17-40 L.

Thats the main point id think about IMO

Thanks for all the additional replies - lots of good information. Larry, do you do any landscape photos, and if so, do you notice distortion at the wider end (fisheye effect)? I've seen some closeups of people and even some cityscapes, and I don't like that effect at all.