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

Lightstream wrote in post #2246962
I primarily switched to the 17-40 to be able to compose on the much better viewfinder of the 5D

By "much better viewfinder" I take it you're referring to its size? Or is there another advantage the 5D's viewfinder has over the 30D's?

I have both the 10-22 and 17-40. On the 20D there is no discernable difference in the quality of images they produce. Optical quality should not be a factor in your decision.

The real question is whether you need or want to go to a full frame system. I have no problem with the image quality I get from my 20D, so I am concentrating on building a a good EF-S system. Others obviously perceive an advantage tothe 5D that is worth the extra cost to them. I don't beleive you will go wrong with either choice.

montreal wrote in post #2247778
...

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.

I simply mean the 30D sensor is less capable of dealing with the high demands of its ultrawide lens (10-22) than the 5D is able to handle the resolution of its ultrawide lens (17-40/16-35). In other words, the 10-22's resolution forces the 8.2 MP sensor to its limits

If you're only going to 18x12, you'll be cheering with a 10-22. It could deliver larger prints than that with a 30D.

delhi wrote in post #2247929
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.

Not sure who you are responding to, but I agree with you about the optical performance of the 10-22 ... it's definitely on a par with an L in this regard. Same for its AF. But build quality is nowhere near an L. That's one reason I've 'backtraded' to a Tokina 12-24, which is built like a truck.

linarms wrote in post #2248540
That's one reason I've 'backtraded' to a Tokina 12-24, which is built like a truck.

Mmmhhhh... and another advantage of the Tokina is that if I were to go FF in the future, it would still work... It's quite good optically, you said?

Great... now I have scenario #3... just what I needed

I considered the Sigma 10-20 very strongly and also thought about the Toki. But seeing how both distort terribly, I went with the 10-22. Its amazing. The build quality is good. If I kick drop it from a two story house, I bet any lens would've shattered. In this regard, I rather go with L quality IQ. I treat all my lenses including now the unused kit lens with utmost care.

People tend to equate aluminum castings with quality construction and polycarbonate with low quality. They should explain that to aero-space engineers.

montreal wrote in post #2247778
That's interesting... it keeps that edge until what f-stop, in your opinion?

After putting thousands of frames through my 10-22 (was really a top favorite of mine), hmm.. I'd say I like it best around f/8, that's when it equalizes with the 17-40. The borders are still slightly soft at f/5.6. f/8 is sharp corner-to-corner (pretty much except extreme tips), which is important when you are shooting landscapes. So f/8 it is. 17-40 is used at f/8 anyway but wouldn't hesitate to shoot it wide open or any other aperture.

However, if you are shooting on a crop factor camera I say buy the 10-22, it is still a magnificent lens. The differences we're talking about are minute and I am printing some of these fairly big.

montreal wrote in post #2248132
By "much better viewfinder" I take it you're referring to its size? Or is there another advantage the 5D's viewfinder has over the 30D's?

Size, brightness in particular, less coarse grain in the viewfinder. Size matters, now I can actually compose in the VF, instead of what I used to do with my 350D and 10-22 - size it up, check borders, check polarization, squeeze the shutter and hope I brought back something good. Now I can actually examine the scene before me and that has resulted in a more pleasant experience and it makes it easier for me to get the results I want.

To follow up on a couple of things:

The Tokina will work on a full frame camera but it will vignette badly between 12-17mm, so you wouldn't really use it on a 5D.

In terms of distortion, the Tokina is no worse than the 10-22. We're talking about high-distortion focal lengths here. The 10-22 makes people look fat just as much as the Tokina

Only downside of the Tokina is bad CA's (purple fringing), which can be removed in PP but are still annoying. The 10-22 has no such problem, but the Tokina is slightly sharper than the 10-22 at the edges when shooting wide open. Pros and cons on both sides.

But if you can get a rebate on a 10-22, I'd get a 10-22. I only backtraded because I needed some cash to put towards a 50/1.4, though I'm looking forward to the build quality too.

17-55IS on the crop system too! A big plus! You spend around the same to get the 24-70L on the full frame body, but no IS!

KevC wrote in post #2250018
17-55IS on the crop system too! A big plus! You spend around the same to get the 24-70L on the full frame body, but no IS!

How much I wanted this lens...I even spoke to a senior Canon rep at an event and they took my phone number - told me they'd call me. No phone call ever came, and I went 5D with 24-105. No regrets yeah, I love the 5D, but the 17-55 is one of the BIG fringe benefits of APS-C.

Now if Canon had been less reticient and FedEx'ed me one with my name on it cash on delivery, there would be no 5D

You spend MORE to get the 24-70...I notice the B&H price on the 17-55 has already come down!

Good thinking Kev.. as a SLR system owner you need to think in terms of the system.

17-40 has a constant aperture. 10-22 has a variable aperture. 5D, you will get the best noise handling out of a camera out there. 30D is no slouch though.

You get better DOF on full frame compared to cropped sensors.
The 24-70 or 24-105 focal length is the midrange zoom for full frame. It's actually wider than the cropped lens counter parts that start at 17mm like the 17-50, 17-70, 17-85, etc.

Do you value EF-S and cropped lens? That's the biggest question. Do you shoot longer or short?

If by better DOF you mean you can get shallower DOF, you're right.

linarms wrote in post #2251037
If by better DOF you mean you can get shallower DOF, you're right.

Yeah, i should have terms that better. If you want shallower. You'd get the true DOF from a lens on full frame compared on cropped. Even on a 1.3 cropped camera, you'll get a little shallower than 1.6.

Lightstream wrote in post #2246962
Put it this way - I still miss the 10-22.

I can empathize with this statement completely.