10-22 EF-S vs 17-40L FF

I've been dreaming about getting the 5D and 17-40L for my landscape work. The rebates are the nudge I needed.

5D + 17-40L + 430EX flash = 4562CAD (with the rebates)

But I'm having doubts... The 30D and 10-22 EF-S combo would cover the same focal lenghts (10-22 is equivalent to 16-35)... and would be soooo much cheaper...

30D + 10-22 EF-S + 430EX flash = 2978CAD (with the rebates)

For those wondering why the flash is in both scenarios... I need it to double the rebate for the 30D... 10-22 is not on the rebate list. Since I want to compare apples with apples I put it in both scenarios. And I don't have a flash so it would be a nice addition to my bag.

Any thoughts? How does the 10-22 on a 30D compare with the 17-40 on a 5D in terms of quality?

That's a tough call. I've never used the 10-22 but I do have the 17-40 on a 5D. From what I've seen, you really can't go wrong either way.

Edit...just realized...my avatar was shot with the 17-40. Most likely won't help you with your decision but I just wanted to add that in

The 17-40 is a great walk about on a crop camera, and a decent ultra wide on a full-frame.

As you know the EF-S 10-22 is crop only - it makes a great ultra wiode, great optics but build quality is not that of an L.

I chose a 17-40 over the 10-22 based on the fact that for a walk-about lans, the 17-40 was more use, as I felt 10mm was rather exctreme and that I'd tire of it soon enough. the other issue was the EF-S thing - I just don't like spending so much money for alens that won't go full-frame.

However upgrading to a 30D and using the EF-S lens will be a massive upgrade fpor you anyway, so if you really want an ultra wide and budget is a major concern, stick with the crop camera. A 5D would be great - but you don't have to spend the extra.

A 17-40 makes an excellent landscape lens on a crop camera too - and it does have a rebate on it!

Why not head down to a store and try the combinations out for 'feel'? That should help a decision.

There are many people that keep their crop body cameras just because of the 10-22mm lens alone. Its that nice.

Both lenses are real winners, you cant go wrong with either.

You really just have to decide which camera is for you, the 5D is overall, the better camera, but it costs twice as much. Just be realistic, if you dont need a 5D, save your money, and buy more glass, if you need the 5D, then go ahead and buy it. Im sure you will be happy either way.

The Canon 10-22 does fall under the rebate.

I just bought a 30D with the 50mm 1.4 and the 10-22.
The rebates swayed me as well.
The rebate sheet I received, had the 10-22 listed.

The 10-22 is fantastic.


Hey Megatron, you're a local.
I'm in Cerritos as well.


-BillP

17-40 on full frame is pretty sweet.

BillP wrote in post #2246820
The Canon 10-22 does fall under the rebate.

I just bought a 30D with the 50mm 1.4 and the 10-22.
The rebates swayed me as well.
The rebate sheet I received, had the 10-22 listed.

The 10-22 is fantastic.


Hey Megatron, you're a local.
I'm in Cerritos as well.


-BillP

Sweet, there are going to be a couple veterans days events happening tomorrow, one of them is at the Cerritos Civic Center, should be some good photo ops.

As someone who switched from 10-22 with 350D to 17-40 on 5D (not to be confused with 17-40 on crop camera, as so many who have never handled full frame often do), the lenses are pretty much functionally identical. Dynamics, handling, and 'feel' are nearly identical. I won't start the nonsense about L build quality or not - drop both from a decent handling height and I will put money on the fact that both will take serious damage.

Good thing is that 'nearly identical' extends to quality as well, however the 17-40 has a SERIOUS edge when wide open. My 10-22 copy, which was rechecked by Canon, was never spectacular wide open but quality blows my socks off at f/8. It may be copy-to-copy performance but I personally carried the lens down to the service center, left it with them for a week and they assured me that it was within spec and not to worry about it. Anyway that was not a huge concern as my landscapes are all shot at f/8 anyway.

I primarily switched to the 17-40 to be able to compose on the much better viewfinder of the 5D and since I was transitioning my whole system to EF. Put it this way - I still miss the 10-22.

montreal wrote in post #2246384
I've been dreaming about getting the 5D and 17-40L for my landscape work. The rebates are the nudge I needed.

5D + 17-40L + 430EX flash = 4562CAD (with the rebates)

But I'm having doubts... The 30D and 10-22 EF-S combo would cover the same focal lenghts (10-22 is equivalent to 16-35)... and would be soooo much cheaper...

30D + 10-22 EF-S + 430EX flash = 2978CAD (with the rebates)

For those wondering why the flash is in both scenarios... I need it to double the rebate for the 30D... 10-22 is not on the rebate list. Since I want to compare apples with apples I put it in both scenarios. And I don't have a flash so it would be a nice addition to my bag.

Any thoughts? How does the 10-22 on a 30D compare with the 17-40 on a 5D in terms of quality?

Try these links

http://www.prime-junta.net …_Wide_Angle_Sho​otout.html

And this although not quite so directly relevant.

http://wlcastleman.com …s/10-22memunion/index.htm

What do you want to achieve with the combo?

If you're after huge wall-size prints, it goes without saying that the 5D + 17-40 will outresolve the 30D + 10-22. BUT you can still get pretty large, sharp prints with the 30D + 10-22 (I just sold my 10-22 for a Tokina 12-24: similar IQ but cheaper), because the 10-22's resolution is so high it challenges the 30D's sensor. So if you don't need massive prints, save the dough.

(The first link posted by Lester will help you a lot, with concrete examples of the resolving power of both combos ... but again, if you're not going for massive prints, the pixel peeping shouldn't mean much to you.)

Thank you all for you replies!

steved110 wrote in post #2246756
I chose a 17-40 over the 10-22 based on the fact that for a walk-about lans, the 17-40 was more use, as I felt 10mm was rather exctreme and that I'd tire of it soon enough.

But 10mm is not extreme on a crop camera... it's the equivalent of 16mm on a FF... I've established already that I need the "wideness" for landscapes.

MegaTron wrote in post #2246801
There are many people that keep their crop body cameras just because of the 10-22mm lens alone. Its that nice.

Both lenses are real winners, you cant go wrong with either.

That's good to know... thanks!

BillP wrote in post #2246820
The Canon 10-22 does fall under the rebate.

Not in Canada

Lightstream wrote in post #2246962
Good thing is that 'nearly identical' extends to quality as well, however the 17-40 has a SERIOUS edge when wide open.

That's interesting... it keeps that edge until what f-stop, in your opinion?

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2246994
Try these links

http://www.prime-junta.net …_Wide_Angle_Sho​otout.html

And this although not quite so directly relevant.

http://wlcastleman.com …s/10-22memunion/index.htm

I will... it looks like that first one is exactly what I'm after...

linarms wrote in post #2247266
the 10-22's resolution is so high it challenges the 30D's sensor

What do you mean by this? To answer your question (about wall prints) I would sure like to go 11X14 and 12X18 when I feel like it. But I won't do that with all my keepers... It will be rather exceptional when it happens.

steved110 wrote in post #2246756
Why not head down to a store and try the combinations out for 'feel'? That should help a decision.

That's a good idea. Missed it on the first read

I'll do that...

Nonsense. The EFS 10-22 has all the L ingredients except the red band. Aspheric elements, SUD glass etc...
I've yet to see any WA lens that have less distortion than this lens period. It's a great lens once you know how to use it. Very fun.

montreal wrote in post #2247778
But 10mm is not extreme on a crop camera... it's the equivalent of 16mm on a FF... I've established already that I need the "wideness" for landscapes.

I beg to differ - 16mm on full frame is ultra wide. The only way to get wider is circular fish eye. the 14mm EF L lens is rectilinear and is a different kettle of fish altogether, just check the price out for starters.

There is wide and wider, of course, but ultra wide needs to be used carefully, or the effect is lost. I decided I preferred the near 'standard' zoom of 17-40 on a crop camera, and the fact that if and when I went full frame it would still fit, was a bonus.

steved110 wrote in post #2247995
I beg to differ - 16mm on full frame is ultra wide. The only way to get wider is circular fish eye.

Ok... I misunderstood you. I thought you thought I was comparing both lenses per say (while I'm rather comparing two different lense/camera sets).

The question is: how does 10-22 on crop compare to 17-40 on FF.