17 -40 L or 10 -22 ???

17 -40 L or 10 -22 which one would you buy? I will be using it for wide angleshots obviously. Which produces better quality photos?

I assume you're using an APS-C body...?

If you really want the WOW factor of UWA, go with the 10-22.

If you want wide without being rediculously wide (and you maybe fancy a FF body eventually) then consider the 17-40.

Had the 10-22 and liked it with the 20D I used to have but once I got a 5D Classic, I made a beeline for the 17-40.

Thanks Flyingphotog... I was leaning that way... oh & yes i have a crop...

I was looking at this some time ago, after much thought I went with the 17-40.

i had same experience like u do. i ever had 10-22 for almost 1 year. but the more i used it, the more i felt it's TOO WIDE for me (on 40d). i only used it few times in 1 year (coz i preferred to use 2470L) --> (as i am not a landscaper).

then,i sold 1022 and bought 1740L. i really satisfy with this 1740.
So, please you should understand what u're gonna shot in the future.

Maybe i will use it as my walk-around lens while going abroad (& keep the tank-built 2470L).

hope u can find your own answer & reason which lens is the most suitable for u. cheers

Note: in the future, if u (will) buy FF, u (still) can use the 1740L.

I have both of these lenses....and they both work well on my 40D. I use the 10-22 for UW shots (almost exclusively at 10mm) and then an occasional semi-wide portrait (17-22mm). The 17-40mm covers a pretty useful portrait range.

If you really want the UWA effect, then get the 10-22. If you want something more geared for portrait-type stuff, then 17-40mm is well-suited for that on a crop body.

10-22 on a crop for sure, a really fun lense.

A question of my own : how did the people coming from crop + 10-22 to ff + 17-40 find it? +'s -'s?

If youre planning on upgrading some day I'd say get the 17-40, unless you really need the UWA

10-22 if you think you are always going to have a 1.6 otherwise a 17-40

I use a 17-40 as I did not like the distortion in the photos introduced by the 10-22. For my shooting it works better as I really wanted a wide angle to shoot in cities when I travel and that is where the distortion becomes the greatest.

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

Maybe people could post up shots of the 10-20 at 10mm on the crop body, then the 17-40 at 17mm on a crop body so the OP can see the difference.

Buy one, if you don't like it you can always trade for the other. They are of similar price so it should be no big deal to switch. People are always looking for the 10-22 (like me) or the 17-40

Again, as people have mentioned, if your intention is to stay on the Crop format. With out a doubt, you will want the 10-22mm.

I have only had mine since I switched to canon back in august. I am actually selling it. (Not here, just on CL.) only do to me being able to get a 5d Mk I. (So naturally I am getting a 17-40mm to substitute it.)

17mm on a crop is not very wide. (17*1.6=27.2mm) vs. 10mm on the crop with is. (16mm).
The minimum focus distance on the lens is cool too.

Here is 10mm:

focus.pocus wrote in post #8909050
17 -40 L or 10 -22 which one would you buy? I will be using it for wide angleshots obviously. Which produces better quality photos?

both. one is WA and the other is UWA. i use the 16-35L and 24-70L on FF, which is roughly the same as you using the 10-22 and 17-40L on 1.6 crop.

ed rader

rklepper wrote in post #8910416
I use a 17-40 as I did not like the distortion in the photos introduced by the 10-22. For my shooting it works better as I really wanted a wide angle to shoot in cities when I travel and that is where the distortion becomes the greatest.


Perhaps that distortion is what you are looking for, but not me.

well you can shoot the 10-22 @ 17mm just like the the 17-40L. i agree that sometimes distortion isn't desirable, but for me sometimes it is.

ed rader