Need a great wide angle lens

Hello im between two lenses #1 10-22 #2 17-40.I will be shooting landscapes with a 40D camera and with one of these lenses, and i need your help on which one too get...

I tried out the 10-22 and i like it i just have this thought in my head that its going to be to wide, for my type of shooting... I have never tried out the 17-40 but it looks like a focal length i would like...

Bottom line is would you upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens to the 17-40L, or would you upgrade to a entirely diff focal length.I think the 10-22 and 28-135 will make a fine couple.Or i was thinking about the 17-40 and 70-200.

Tell me which one you would choose and what do you think about the lens, is it worth it.Thanks Sean .L

well - you can tell if it's a focal length you're going to like as it's so very close to the 18-55. All you're missing there is a little bit on the long end.

10mm and 17mm on a crop camera are very different things... one's not nearly as wide as the other. Could you live with only the width of your kit lens (plus 1mm) for landscapes?

17mm is not all that wide on a cropper. Canon only for you??

Hey Jim yes i think i can live with 17mm i love useing 18mm with my kit its just too cheap for my likeing i was just wondering about the wider lens.And Darkninja yes im a canon man hehe:p

I had a Tokina 12-24, it took incredible pictures and was around $225 less the the canon. I still regret getting rid of it.

silverwolf,
I have both the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and the 17-40 f/4L and honestly to my eyes they are identical in photo quality.

So my suggestion would depend on whether you want ultra wide angle or wide angle.

I personally use my 10-22 for landscape photos more then my 17-40L when using my 40D

Good luck as both are great lenses

Here is a picture from the 10-22 i took set at 10mm of my Baby.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Thank you John helps out alot.

I just bought the Tokina 12-24 to go hand in hand with the 24-70L (I shoot film also so the 17-55 was a no go). I've read REALLY good things about it and must recommend giving that some thought as well.

10-22 + 24-70 + 70-200

"I tried out the 10-22 and i like it i just have this thought in my head that its going to be to wide, for my type of shooting... I have never tried out the 17-40 but it looks like a focal length i would like..."

I use the 12-24mm Tokina f/4 as my wide lens. I like this lens because of the quality of imagery, build and of course price. It is considerably less expensive than the 120-22mm Canon - about 2/3 the price when you consider that the lens hood is provided free of charge with the Tokina and you have to buy one with the Canon.

I don't like the 17-40mm f/4L lens on a 1.6x camera. It is simply not long enough. I tried to use it in conjunction with the 70-200mm f/4L but the 40-70mm gap drove me crazy. I do a lot of shooting in that area.

The 17-40mm f/4L is a very nice wide lens on a full-frame format. It comes very close to the 12-24mm on a 1.6x camera. IMO, the 17-40L is a fine enough wide angle but, is not an all around lens for a 1.6x camera because it is to short at 40mm and is too slow at f/4.

The 12-24mm or the 10-22mm lenses would be an excellent combination with a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens but, I wish that the 28-135mm had a bit better image quality, newer IS and a constant f/2.8 aperture.

I would expect that the Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM Lens would be an excellent combination with the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina but, it would be nice if the 50-150mm had Sigma's equivalent of IS incorporated.

My favorite combination is a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens with a 70-200mm f/4L IS on two bodies. I use a 30D and a 40D. The 17mm is wide enough so I don't always need to carry a wider lens and the 55mm is a much more usable focal length than is 40mm. I don't mis the 55-70mm gap the way I missed the 40-70mm gap in focal lengths.

"Bottom line is would you upgrade from the 18-55 kit lens to the 17-40L, or would you upgrade to a entirely diff focal length.I think the 10-22 and 28-135 will make a fine couple.Or i was thinking about the 17-40 and 70-200."

If you could afford it, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a stellar lens. At a lesser price, I like the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron which has great IQ, good focus capability and is 1/2 the price of the 17-55mm IS lens. The Tamron doesn't have IS but, IMO, IS is simply icing on the cake in a lens of this focal length.

By the way engramarino's idea of 10-22mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm is a great idea but a bit on the heavy side. I used this combination (except I used the 12-24mm Tokina instead of the 10-22mm Canon WA lens) for a while until I got the 17-55mm allowing me to travel with 2 cameras and 2 lenses.

Thanks RpCrowe but i have no need for IS or a 2.8 aperture on a landscape lens on a telephoto lens yes not to put the 17-55 down im just not in need of its features.

And plus its 300 bucks more:o i rather put that on the 70-200 2.8 in the future.Yes i agree the 10-22 24-70 70-200 would be awsome but yet again i dont need the 24-70 lens.

Would i miss 30mm gap useing the 17-40 and 70-200, i dont think i will be thinking about it while im out shooting.Thanks

I have a Sigma 17-70 that I use on my 40D and just for fun, tried a 10-22 on the 40D during my last visit to B&H. The 10-22 is now on my gotta have list. 17mm is great for landscap, but 10mm is gonna be a killer!!

Since you already have 28-135, definitley get the 10-22 or also consider the 10-20 sigma.

10-22. 100% my vote. The only thing I don't like about it are the CAs on highlights in the corners, but those are photoshopped out really easily.
I recommend it with impossibly large percents.