Canon 17-55mm vs. 10-22mm ???

Hey all, I need some opinions to get me the right decision. Well for a while I have had my eye set on the Canon 17-55mm. But just recently, I have noticed alot of people shooting cars/nature/urban life with the Canon 10-22mm. So now I am again, stuck on which my next lens should be. I will be shooting nature/urban life/cars/boats/rig shots/etc. Just help me in the right direction, thanks alot guys/gals!

Since you only have the 55-250, I'd go with the 17-55 (or Sigma or Tamron equivalent). It's a more versatile range.

Well really I want to get into the shorter range close up lenses because my lens right now can't shoot anything close up all that well. And I am just wondering what the better lens would be for the shots I want to take. Don't base it on the lens I got now Lol

When you say close up, are you talking macro? Didn't seem so from your original "nature/urban life/cars/boats/rig shots/etc." description.

If shooting macro, then you might want to look at the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro.

The 10-22 isn't really a "shorter range close up lens." Check the lens archive for shots with it. Mostly a landscape type lens. Good for architecture too.

Here, saved you the trouble.

https://photography-on-the.net …?t=312255&highl​ight=10-22

17-55 IS will do find job for what you have described.

I have both. When I go for a 'general purpose' event, I use 17-55. For example, kids parties, family gathering, walkaround. It's a very sharp lens.

But I personally feel that 10-22 is more 'special'. The 10mm end is awesome. I actually saw a lot of cars/boats/architectur​al shots taken with the lens because of the wideness. A friend of mine actually uses 10-22 most of the times when he took car pictures. (http://szonestudio.mul​tiply.com/photos/album​/1/Automotive)

I own both lens and the 10-22 rarely gets used. the 17-55 is my go to lens and always on the camera. the UWA is a specialty lens serve for different purpose and will give you bad results if not used correctly

I also have both, but use the 17-55 much more. The bonus of the 17-55 is you can actually get bokeh out of it. Forget about bokeh on the 10-22. the 10-22 is one awesome lens though. No one can make this decision for you, especially if it's from someone who owns them both. I would never give up either one.

SCOTTinNJ wrote in post #7352942
When you say close up, are you talking macro? Didn't seem so from your original "nature/urban life/cars/boats/rig shots/etc." description.

If shooting macro, then you might want to look at the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro.

The 10-22 isn't really a "shorter range close up lens." Check the lens archive for shots with it. Mostly a landscape type lens. Good for architecture too.

No I want a standard zoom or wide angle.

Pasukun wrote in post #7353063
17-55 IS will do find job for what you have described.

Thanks for that!

swidjaja wrote in post #7353122
I have both. When I go for a 'general purpose' event, I use 17-55. For example, kids parties, family gathering, walkaround. It's a very sharp lens.

But I personally feel that 10-22 is more 'special'. The 10mm end is awesome. I actually saw a lot of cars/boats/architectur​al shots taken with the lens because of the wideness. A friend of mine actually uses 10-22 most of the times when he took car pictures. (http://szonestudio.mul​tiply.com/photos/album​/1/Automotive)

That's the problem I'm running into, I am seeing more people using the 10-22mm and I'm wondering if that's what I should get instead. But I think the 17-55mm will be perfect. I'll get both eventually

Oteck wrote in post #7353165
I own both lens and the 10-22 rarely gets used. the 17-55 is my go to lens and always on the camera. the UWA is a specialty lens serve for different purpose and will give you bad results if not used correctly

Jethro790 wrote in post #7353168
I also have both, but use the 17-55 much more. The bonus of the 17-55 is you can actually get bokeh out of it. Forget about bokeh on the 10-22. the 10-22 is one awesome lens though. No one can make this decision for you, especially if it's from someone who owns them both. I would never give up either one.

Sounds like the 17-55mm is the winner. Lol

I'd say you should get the 17-55mm first and then the 10-22mm later on.

Just sold my 70-200 f4 yesterday so that I could fund the 10-22mm

dlai531 wrote in post #7353801
I'd say you should get the 17-55mm first and then the 10-22mm later on.

Just sold my 70-200 f4 yesterday so that I could fund the 10-22mm

I have both lenses too and completely agree with dlai531. 17-55 is probably the best multipurpose lens for cropped cameras. 10-22 is awesome lens and you''ll love the things it can, but it has slightly more special application and can not do the same job as 17-55, if you have no lense up to 55, as I see.

17-55 is my workhorse, it's almost glued to my camera. It's probably the most versatile lens you can buy.

The 10-22 is fantastic, but as others have said it's quite a speciality lens. You get a lot of perspective distortion, which can be both good and bad depending on what you need. Also, point the lens up or down slightly and objects which are vertical suddenly appear to be slanted. This is true of all lenses, but you notice it much more with the 10-22.

Both have their uses and are not a replacement for each other. Pick what you will use more, now.. the other later on.

If you are seriously planning on getting the 10-22 at some point, then maybe rethink buying the 17-55.... as opposed to a 2n-7range zoom.

Both lense are for different photography, 10-22 is a landscape and for fun and mostly outside lense. Whereas 17-55 can be used to take family photos wedding and outside. I have both lenses, used them few times, when purchased in Oct, and now I am waiting for spring to go out and enjoy taking photos.
Few photos I took with 17-55 came very clear even in low light due to 2.8. And few photos I took with 10-22 outside came out very nice too. For a while I want to stick with corp, so I am happy also no desire to purchase 70-200 cause it is very heavy and pricy.