Which of these two lenses?

Which of these two lenses?
Looking at getting some L glass for my 40D. Shoot mainly cars and landscape. Would you recommend a 10-22 or a 17-40? My stash already includes:

Canon 15mm f2.8 Fisheye
Canon 28-135mm f3.5 IS
Canon 50mm f1.4

The 50 is my absolute favorite lens...but for shooting cars I have to stand too far back and with a tripod really don't need to use the f1.4 either. I need something I can stand relatively close to but not as close as my fisheye

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Since it doesn't look like you plan on moving from your 28-135, I'd go 10-22. It's a great lens with awesome optics.

I rarely use the 28-135. Only reason I hang on to it is because it has IS.

Sounds like you like primes then. When you say cars, are you talking outdoor with good light? or Car shows? I'd probably recommend the Tokina 11-16 2.8 since it would cover indoor shooting well with the fast aperture, and it's a fantastic landscape lens as well. When I had the Tokina, I agreed with Lightrules' view. Don't think of the 11-16 as being a limited focal range. Think of it as being 6 primes in 1 lens.

If you shoot cars with anything wider than 17mm you'll be getting strong perspective distortion. Some people like that as a 'special effect', but it's not for general shots. I'd also find the 17-40 more useful for landscapes than the 10-22, although only you can decide what kind of pictures you want to take...

Thats what I was afraid of with the 10-22. While shooting cars with the fisheye can be very fun sometimes its not the best.

Which of the two is better quality? They are priced just about even.

I would take into account also whether you might in the future move to full frame camera. If so, you won't be able to use 10-22 there.
If you're looking for extremely wide angle, then definitely go for 10-22 but be careful when shooting on the short end from very close as you'll end up with funny shapes.
In case you don't need to move so close to the car, you should be OK with 17-40 as well. I personally own 17-40 and it's really great lens. I also had a chance to try friend's 10-22 and its wide angle is really excellent. So it really depends what you're looking for - if extreme wide angle - then go for 10-22, if more versatile lens with not such extreme angle, then go for 17-40.
I hope it helps somehow. Have a good pick.

Ya I am thinking the 17-40 is probably going to suit my needs just fine. I love my 50 like I said but sometimes wish I could get a little closer. And no need to go any lower than 17 as I already have the 15 fisheye. Thanks for everyones opinions.

OP's question mentions wanting to get some L-glass. The 10-22 isn't an L. By Canon's own definitions, no EF-S lens will ever be an L-series. The optics of the 10-22 appear top quality. The build is probably more Canon mid-grade quality.

A fisheye is a very different animal, so OP may want to rethink pairing it up with a 17mm lens. There's a huge range you'll be missing in between the 15mm and the 17-40. It's not just the 2mm difference in focal length. Even on a crop sensor where it doesn't render its full 180 degree view but about 112 degrees instead, there is a dramatic difference from a 17mm (which gives about 77 degrees on 1.6X cameras). In fact, the angle of coverage of the fisheye is wider even than the 10-22 zoom, too (107 degrees on 1.6x cameras). On a crop sensor camera, a 17mm is only mildly wide angle. Hardly "breathtaking", IMHO.

I'd probably vote for the Tokina 12-24, if it were an option in the poll. Both it and the Canon 10-22 are surprisingly well corrected, considering just how wide they are. Especially compared to any fisheye!

Alternatively, the new Tamron 10-24 sounds like it will be interesting. We'll have to wait and see.

I have the older 17-35/2.8L, and will be trading it for something wider soon. It's just not wide enough on my crop sensor DSLRs.

gcogger wrote in post #6784143
If you shoot cars with anything wider than 17mm you'll be getting strong perspective distortion. Some people like that as a 'special effect', but it's not for general shots. I'd also find the 17-40 more useful for landscapes than the 10-22, although only you can decide what kind of pictures you want to take...

me too. the 10-22 would be more of a niche lens for me.

ed rader

I'd get the 17-40 if I were you. It's a great landscape lens and it'd be great for shooting cars.

the 10-22 though ef-s and ultrawide is also very rectilinear even at 10mm on the crop bodies it is a great lens that covers just about the equivalent range that a 17-40 does on a ff body

The 10-22 will add nicely to the lenses you already have. It's an excellent lens if you're shooting in tight quarters.

Don't get caught up in the "L-glass" thing. The optics of the 10-22 are very, very similar to the 17-40, except that the 10-22 an EF-S lens. I use to own the 10-22 an now own the 17-40 and IMO the performance of these two lenses are very similar (although the build of the 17-40 is nicer).

And with the 10-22 you don't have to shoot at 10mm if you don't need to. You can shoot at the narrow end of that lens if you want (and if you want a narrower view, use your other lenses). But IMO, it would be very beneficial to have the option of going wider than 17mm when you need to, and that's what the 10-22 will let you do.

amfoto1 wrote in post #6784957
I'd probably vote for the Tokina 12-24, if it were an option in the poll. Both it and the Canon 10-22 are surprisingly well corrected, considering just how wide they are. Especially compared to any fisheye!

+1 for the Tokina 12-24 here.

Lou