17-40L or 10-22?

jcpoulin wrote in post #2177469
Thats nice, but neither offer f2.8...which was my only point.

If you really need a fast lens go for a prime, f2.8 is only a stop faster than f4, the primes will do better than that except at the very wide end. Even then Sigma have fast wide primes.

I have the 17 - 40L

I REALLY want the 10 - 22 since its just not wide enough on the 17. However, If I had FF

fstop11.net wrote in post #2177818
I have the 17 - 40L

I REALLY want the 10 - 22 since its just not wide enough on the 17. However, If I had FF

I would go for the 10-22. To be honest I would have waited for the 5D or a cheaper version of it before going digital if the 10-22 had not existed.

Apart from the 10-22 the rest of the lens system is designed with full frame in mind. Keep your 17-40 as it will then fill the role of the 10-22 on full frame.

Having owned both I decided to stick with the 17-40. An upgrade to a FF will be sometime away, however a 10-22 is an efs lens and so limited to the crop bodies.
If your new to all this then the 10-22 also takes quite a bit of getting used too. Tilt it slightly up or down and the whole view gets distorted, sometimes to the point where you lose the shot. UWA is nice sometimes but sooner or later most people tire of the whole thing. The 17-40 is an L, so resale value is better (should you decide to go for the 16-35 later )