10-22 or 16-35?

Opinions? I currently have the 10-22 which I am very happy with, but recently getting into training under a wedding photographer I find the shallower DOF, and 2.8 in lower light a little more useful. I know this lens would be alot more suited to a FF body, but that f2.8 is just so damn alluring!

Is it worth pulling the trigger and trading up?

Well one thing to consider is that on your 1.6x crop body, the 10-22 gives the same FOV coverage that the 16-35 lens does on a Full Frame sensor body. The 16-35mm lens on your 1.6x crop body will give the coverage of a 26-56mm lens on a Full Frame body. Not exactly UWA.

If you want f2.8 how about the 17-55 f2.8 IS?

Ultra-Wide Angle + f2.8=

Tokina 11-16.

jetsetkiwi wrote in post #8627562
Ultra-Wide Angle + f2.8=

Tokina 11-16.

Beat me to it, don't buy inferior lenses (or lenses not suited to your needs) purely because of the name on them. The Tokina is a fantastic lens.

I think the color that the 16-35 mkii produces is richer than either the 10-22 or the 17-55, especially in my skies. And it's very sharp. But I don't know if it is just the lens or if it's because I'm comparing those two on the T1i to the 16-35 on the 5Dmkii. I haven't tried it on the crop camera to compare.

Medic1 wrote in post #8627447
Opinions? I currently have the 10-22 which I am very happy with, but recently getting into training under a wedding photographer I find the shallower DOF, and 2.8 in lower light a little more useful. I know this lens would be alot more suited to a FF body, but that f2.8 is just so damn alluring!

Is it worth pulling the trigger and trading up?

The 16-35 is not wide at all on a crop body. I wouldn't be trading up unless you're trading up to a FF camera as well.

ScootersDaddy wrote in post #8627588
I think the color that the 16-35 mkii produces is richer than either the 10-22 or the 17-55, especially in my skies. And it's very sharp. But I don't know if it is just the lens or if it's because I'm comparing those two on the T1i to the 16-35 on the 5Dmkii. I haven't tried it on the crop camera to compare.

I don't have the 16-35, but I know that the 17-40 on my 5d2 is sharper than the 10-22 on the 40D, especially at the edges of the photo

I guess I should have said that I would absolutely love to go FF in the future. I was thinking about going FF (with the original 5D) when the 5D2 came out but when the 5D classic didn't drop at all in price when the new body came out I couldn't justify spending the extra $900 over and above the cost of the 50D to go FF. Seeing as this is probably a lens I would keep for a while into the foreseeable future I would want something that would be compatible with both bodies (if I end up with a crop and a FF) or with FF if I eventually have 2 FF bodies. This was the only thing I regretted about the 10-22 purchase, and if I am going to spend an extra $700 over the cost of what I can sell my 10-22 for right now I would probably choose not to buy something that isn't fully compatible with a FF body (just keeping in mind future considerations) without having to crop or do heavy PP work to control vignetting (11-16).

So, that being said, even if we left out the idea of getting rid of the 10-22 for now (at least until I do go FF), would this be a good addition to my gear (I would probably ditch the 17-40 even if I keep the 10-22, so I have that as a source of income toward the 16-35)

gcflora wrote in post #8627600
I don't have the 16-35, but I know that the 17-40 on my 5d2 is sharper than the 10-22 on the 40D, especially at the edges of the photo

In my case, the 10-22 was sharper in the corners on the 40D than my 17-40 is on my 5D and certainly less distortion.

bohdank wrote in post #8627748
In my case, the 10-22 was sharper in the corners on the 40D than my 17-40 is on my 5D and certainly less distortion.

It's weird how things work, because I was also going to say that the 17-40 on my 5d2 has less distortion! I hope I'm not getting lenses confused :/

We can debate variances in copies of lenses in terms of sharpness but the 17-40 does have more barrel distortion at the wide end, the 10-22 virtually 0 on their respective crop/ff bodies.

bohdank wrote in post #8627775
We can debate variances in copies of lenses in terms of sharpness but the 17-40 does have more barrel distortion at the wide end, the 10-22 virtually 0 on their respective crop/ff bodies.

Oh, I wasn't wanting to debate And, was not suggesting you are wrong, just that I thought I had the opposite experience.

I have used a 16-35 f/2.8 on a crop body and I own a 10-22mm

The 10-22 is fantastic for the cropped sensor. The only thing it lacks is DOF. This is partly because its not that a fast lens and partly because of the cropped sensor.

IMO the biggest improvement with 16-35 is DOF, but ONLY if you change to FF.

So unless you are changing to FF I wouldnt recommend this at all. Instead for those focal lenghts I would take the 17-55 f/2.8 IS for the cropped sensor no question.

So it all depends if you want to move on to FF. IMO in wedding photography DOF is your friend. Nice Bokeh suits very well for this kind of photography.

just my 2 cents..

Ya but 17mm is not 10mm