17-55 or 10-22

Ok, I can't decide. I want a lens with more coverage on the wide end but I don't know which of these to buy. I'd honestly prefer an L series lens but the widest L is way out of my price range (14mmII).

I think I'll be able to convince the wife on either of these lenses, especially since the rebates are in place now. I've considered replacing my 24-60 with the 17-55IS or adding to the bag with the 10-22. I'm a huge fan of USM and IS is nice. I've also considered the Tamron 17-50 but would rather stay with Canon lenses. I don't know...any suggestions would help.

I've looked through the archive on both lenses and the results I've seen are quite awesome. I know I won't be disappointed with either lens. The only thing I'm concerned with is how bad EF-S lenses collect dust. Any thoughts?

Anyone out there who has owned or currently owns either of these lenses have any regrets or suggestions otherwise?

Regards

I had one (17-55) for my 30D and just sold it because it won't work on a full frame and I have upgraded to a 5D MKII. I kept a filter on mine at all times (a very high quality filter--top of the line Hoya) and it did NOT gather dust at all. I have also owned the Sigma 10-20 (similar range to the Canon 10-22) and I really liked that range also. I don't think you could go wrong with either of these lenses. The wide angle had a "fun factor" for me that I really miss a lot. The 17-55 was simply the best in its range. Good luck deciding which one to get--I can't help you there, because the lenses have different purposes. I know that they are both very highly thought of.

I have the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5 wide angle lens and it takes outstanding images. If only it was available with an f2.8 aperture for interior situations for that added umpf factor.

ozziepuppy wrote in post #7851018
I had one (17-55) for my 30D and just sold it because it won't work on a full frame and I have upgraded to a 5D MKII. I kept a filter on mine at all times (a very high quality filter--top of the line Hoya) and it did NOT gather dust at all. I have also owned the Sigma 10-20 (similar range to the Canon 10-22) and I really liked that range also. I don't think you could go wrong with either of these lenses. The wide angle had a "fun factor" for me that I really miss a lot. The 17-55 was simply the best in its range. Good luck deciding which one to get--I can't help you there, because the lenses have different purposes. I know that they are both very highly thought of.

That's why this decision is so hard!

Seriously though, thanks for your feedback. If I bought the 17-55, I'd have to sell the Sigma that I currently own. It's a good lens but doesn't have some features I would really like to have. It's also built like a tank, which the EF-s line isn't.

Decisions, decisions

The 10-22 has so little barrel movement, it's not prone to collect dust. Mine hasn't.

I think it's an excellent lens amd it ia very light. Probably because of the diminutive glass inside.

Hard to say.. I'd say get both and get the 17-55 first.. You'll probably use it more than the 10-22.. But then if you are happy with your sigma, I dont see a problem with skipping the 17-55 and get the 10-22 first.. Personally though I find 17mm to be quite wide, so even though I'm going to get the 10-22 (or something similair) sometime, I dont really have a urgent need for it, so i'm thinking that the 17-55 could still be wide enough for you.. It depends on what you want to shoot,really...

bohdank wrote in post #7851439
The 10-22 has so little barrel movement, it's not prone to collect dust. Mine hasn't.

I think it's an excellent lens and it's very light. Probably because of the diminutive glass inside.

I'm with bohdank on this. Had mine about a year and ZERO dust inside.

I put a high quality (Kenko) protector filter on the front before it left the shop, have tested it for IQ with and without since then (impossible to tell the difference) and have been amazed by the quality for a non-L.

Also, I like not having IS (for example, the 17-55) for two reasons.

1) It can't go wrong - the 17-55 is reported as suffering a tad from duff IS!
2) It does make a difference to battery life.

Oh and one more thing. 10mm on a crop is tremendous. You can create such w i d e, interesting images that you'll wonder how you coped without an ultra-wide...while 17mm is just "useful".

personally if I was going to cough up the cash for the 17-55 I wouldn't, I would spend the $200 more on the 24-70 f/2.8. Advantage there is much better IQ, it's the "L" you covet (your "L Fever" note...cool!) and it will work FF if you eventually move up to FF.

I do not think the 17-55 f/2.8 is worth the price when the 24-70 is there at the same time for only a bit more. If you go that way, you can wait and see how the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 pans out when it starts hitting the shelves.

I love my 24-60 and my 10-20. The only lens I would consider for replacing the 24-60 is the 24-70 and there really is nothing that is worth replacing my 10-20 right now. I even doubt the f/3.5 will tickle my interest enough.

Anyway, that is the route I would take.

FWIW, Amazon has the 24-70 for $1100 right now...I think they say there is a delay in shipping of 1-4 weeks?

http://www.amazon.com …&m=ATVPDKIKX0DE​R&v=glance

B&H has it for just $10 more also with free shipping:
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …e_Angle_Telepho​to_EF.html

I've got a filter on my 17-55 and have had no issues with dust, even after a very dusty trip to Africa!

I think it's a great all purpose lens, good for landscapes and especially portraits. Very sharp. One thing to consider with the 10-22 is the distortion you get at the very wide end. Do you really need an ultra wide, and can you live without the very useful range of the 17-55?

You already have 24+ covered, I don't think you need the 17-55. I'd go for the UWA. I wouldn't rule out the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 -- I tried the Canon, Sigma and Tokina and preferred the latter.

Later you could upgrade the Sigma for the 24-70L.

Lens dust is a non-issue, it doesn't affect image quality

J

I do 90% of my shooting between my 10-22 and 17-55. Couldn't live without these two lenses. I far prefer the 17-55 over the 24-70 because I like to travel light. The 24-70 is a tank (or a brick, I guess).

brecklundin wrote in post #7853786
I would spend the $200 more on the 24-70 f/2.8. Advantage there is much better IQ

Interesting, I've heard the exact opposite (ie TDP review). Is there a particular area you are referring to? The 17-55 certainly doesn't handle flare particularly well.

OP, if you want to save some cash it's worth looking at the Tokina 11-16mm to pair with the 17-55.

Thank you all for the good advice. I'll update the thread with some photos when I get whatever it is I'm going to get

The answer of course is get both. I own both and love both of them.

Dust has not been a problem with either lens, both of which generally wear good quality filters.

Forget about Full Frame for now. Both lenses have excellent resale value and are easy to resell.

brecklundin wrote in post #7853786
personally if I was going to cough up the cash for the 17-55 I wouldn't, I would spend the $200 more on the 24-70 f/2.8. Advantage there is much better IQ, it's the "L" you covet (your "L Fever" note...cool!) and it will work FF if you eventually move up to FF.

I do not think the 17-55 f/2.8 is worth the price when the 24-70 is there at the same time for only a bit more. If you go that way, you can wait and see how the new Sigma 10-20 f/3.5 pans out when it starts hitting the shelves.

I love my 24-60 and my 10-20. The only lens I would consider for replacing the 24-60 is the 24-70 and there really is nothing that is worth replacing my 10-20 right now. I even doubt the f/3.5 will tickle my interest enough.

Anyway, that is the route I would take.

FWIW, Amazon has the 24-70 for $1100 right now...I think they say there is a delay in shipping of 1-4 weeks?

http://www.amazon.com …&m=ATVPDKIKX0DE​R&v=glance

B&H has it for just $10 more also with free shipping:
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …e_Angle_Telepho​to_EF.html

IQ is not MUCH better from the 24-70. Owned them both. 17-55 is sharper and IQ is on par. Build quality is not on par however. Also there is a vast difference between 17mm and 24mm on a crop.