Can't decide

I still can't decide whether I should get myself the 10-22mm EFS or the 17-40mm... for Christmas.

My photography plans for the future are to have the 5D, 17-40, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 70-200 f/4 hence getting the 17-40 would bring me closer.

I'd enjoy the solid build of the 17-40 compared to the 10-22, the L quality, and the fact that I won't have to worry about selling it when I go full frame (2 years). My main concern is whether 17mm would be wide enough on the 1.6 crop for landscapes, equivilant FOV 27mm compared to 16mm.

However I do like the fact that I will have the 30mm focal range covered and hence I can use it as a general walk around - I fear the 22mm would still be too wide.

So my concern, is 17mm wide enough? Will I lose out through the reselling of 10-22?

Thanks

It depends on whether you need a super wide angle lens or not doesn't it? These are two different lenses for two different purposes. Only you know how you are going to use it.

The build quality is really not relevant unless you plan to use your lens as a hammer. Image quality is very important and there is not much difference between the two lenses.

I do not see anything wrong with the image quality from my 20D, so I have no intention of ever going full frame. As a result I have no hesitation about purchasing EF-S lenses. I have the 10-22 and 17-55 EF-S lenses and the 17-40 EF. All three give excellent quality pictures, but the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a much more useful lens for an EF-S camera. The 17-40 sits at home most of the time except if I am using my old D60 or decide to take out the EOS 3 film camera (almost never).

In my mind you have to make up your mind as to whether you want to compromise your current equipment because you might go FF some time in the future or make your purchases to maximize the effectiveness of the camera you have now. It is your choice.

illy wrote in post #2248810
So my concern, is 17mm wide enough? Will I lose out through the reselling of 10-22?

Thanks

IMO 17mm is plenty wide enough. But that's my view, not necessarily yours. I chose the 17-40L because I didn't think I'd get as much use out of the 10-22. My 17-40 does fine as a walkaround lens as well as for landscapes, statuary, etc.

JNunn wrote in post #2249375
IMO 17mm is plenty wide enough. But that's my view, not necessarily yours. I chose the 17-40L because I didn't think I'd get as much use out of the 10-22. My 17-40 does fine as a walkaround lens as well as for landscapes, statuary, etc.

As a counterpoint to the above, I did want something wider than 17mm to go with my XT so I bought the 10-22. Since then, I bought the 5D and the 17-40L, and sold off the 10-22.

Do I regret purchasing the 10-22? Nope, I got hundreds of shots I wouldn't have been able to with the 17-40 and my XT. As they said, it all depends on what you shoot.

Thanks for the replies. Would anyone mind posting a picture with the 17-40 on a 1.6 crop?