Anyone own Both 17-40F4L(or 16-35) and the EFS 10-22??

I am pondering my next purchase and what better place to discuss than this forum
Ok bottom line is there much point in me getting an UWA with me already owning the 17-40, i mean we are only talking effective 7mm- any thoughts?
If anyone else has faced this dilemna let me here what your reasons were- no matter how strange

Not sure whether to go for the 10-22, the 135L or stump up a bit more cash and go for the 35L- each lens completely different i know- its a sweet shop condition.

Am very confused at the moment, any thoughts from you lovely helpful people would be appreciated. Many thanks.

If you need ultrawide, go for the 10-22. The 17 mm on a crop does not cut it (only equivalent to 27mm field of view). 7mm on WA is a big difference, believe me!

I had the 10-22 when I owned the 20D and can tell you it's a good lens. Sold it and got the 17-40 when I got the 5D

7mm is a big difference. the 10-22 is oh so wide.

I've owned both (just have the 17-40 now because I changed bodies). A few mm at the WA end really does show a huge difference. If you like WA and don't intend to go FF then the 10-22 is a cracking lens.

Those 7 mms are worth it.

When I went digital 18 months ago, I got both a 10-22 and a 17-40. The way I look at it is probably slightly different than most people do.

To me, the 10-22 is a 15 (ok, 14.8 ) mm zoom lens, so a 24 mm equivalent zoom, and the 17-40 a 26 mm, or 42 mm equivalent zoom lens. Totally different animals IOW.

The 10-22 is therefore true UWA, and the 17-40 a proper standard zoom, as a true standard FL, 35 mm equivalent, is 43 mm.

So, it doesn't matter that they overlap. I treat the 10-22 as an UWA, and use it when I need this range, and the 17-40 as a normal lens. That they overlap is just very convenient, it means a little less lens swapping.

BTW, these FL values are the "geometrical midpoints" of these zooms, by lack of a better term. Been using this for over 25 years . It's calculated as ((Square root of ((long end)/(short end)) times (short end)), f.e. ((sqrt(22/10))*10) = 14.8, and 14.8 * 1.6 = 23.7 or ~ 24 in 35 mm equivalent.

Kind regards, Wim

I don't currently own both of these, but a 10mm UWA is next on my hit list, as wimg said, totally different focal ranges.

I have Sig's versions...kinda. 10-20 and 18-50 F2.8 and I used both. 18 just isn't wide enough for certain shots. I've capture a whole Banyan tree being rather close that an 18 0r 17 I would have been so0o0o much farther back.

I have both of these(10-22 and 17-40) and they compliment each other very well. The ultra wide angle does take some getting used to coming from a moderate focal length. The composition of shots can be more challenging. Once used to it, I think you will find the wider angle to be very useful. As others said, it is VERY wide!

right thank you all for that, i was just concerned that the 2 lenses might have been to close to one another. As for going FF in the future, i would like to but i dont think my skill has outgrown the 20d yet, so i will probably stick with crops for now- in any case if i did go FF i would still get a good price for a canon product, they seem to hold their value rather well.

When shooting at 17mm, do you wish it was wider? Yes, the difference between 17mm and 10mm is huge. I like it, but I'm an Ultra Wide kind of guy. I had the 10-22 on my XT.

I have them both as well. The difference between the two is like night and day. A 7mm difference on the wide end is huge and comes in handy for those times where you're not able to compose your picture by "foot zoom". Also, with the 'wideness', you're better able to capture the image as you see it without the need for multi-shot panoramas.

i guess i would use the wide end- the way i see it i now have the basics covered, i am now entering the luxury area, where each lens has a specific purpose- i hope that makes sense, its just deciding what to get, on the one hand i like architecture, not because i think it makes for good photographs but because it makes up so much of my work i find it interesting, and i do occasionally wish i could fit more in frame. But on the other hand i think i need to start improving my people shots- and what better than the 35mm or the 135mm very confusing. I only wish i had more money
Anyway thanks for your opinions, if anyone else would like to share there's i will gladly read them.
Thanks again.

I don't have the 17-40L but I have the Tamron 17-35 and the Canon 10-22.The 17-35 is fine for normal angle of view shots but the 10-22 comes into its own when you want a really wide stretch. It's brilliant!

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #3228557
But on the other hand i think i need to start improving my people shots- and what better than the 35mm or the 135mm very confusing. I only wish i had more money
Anyway thanks for your opinions, if anyone else would like to share there's i will gladly read them.
Thanks again.

The 135L is a fabulous lens. I will probably reacquire it someday; however, on a crop sensor camera, it could end up being too close for portraits.

I rent the 10-22 when I go to Nat'l parks. My 17-40 is my walkaround most of the time; but man.. The difference between 10 and 17 when you've just hiked for hours to the top of Angels Landing at Zion is..
Awesome!

The only time I go back to my 17-40 is when Shooting Panoramas because you don't always notice distortion with the 10-22 in nature; but you do when you're stitching together more than 20 pictures.