10-22 or older 17-35?

I have an oder 17-35mm zoom. I realize it has been upgraded several times and we are now on the 16-35 II. But, I am still using a 1.6 crop camera...at least for a while.
I am considering trading in my 17-35 and getting the Canon 10-22 (I am not considering any other similar option!). At least until I end up with a FF, if ever!
So, my question is whether the Canon 10-22 is as sharp or sharper than the older 17-35. How does the performance compare overall?

That would give me a 10-22, 24-105, 50, 100 Macro, and 70-200. At this point, the 17-35 kinda keeps me from using the 24-105 as much as I should. Of course, if I end up getting the 5d, the 16-35 is ideal in the setup....but I could sell the 10-22 at that point.
Just thinkin'!

I would get the 10-22mm (I just did).

With your nice set of lenses it will fit in great. I got my XSi, 18-55 IS, and 55-250 IS for a good deal in July. I think the kit lenses have been great for the price, but coming from the 35mm days I really missed having a UWA. The 10-22mm seems to hold its value well and I plan on using mine until I go FF as well. Other options that I looked at: Sigma 10-20mm & Tokina 11-16mm.

You should take a look at the 10-22mm pictures thread. I'm not sure how it compares to your 17-35mm, but it is considered to have great color and sharpness for a UWA. Some say the Tokina is sharper (and it has a constent f/2.8 ).

Thanks, Stimpy.
But I'm still wondering if I'm gonna gain anything with respect to IQ by getting rid of the older lens and replacing it with the 10-22. Put another way, is it possible the older L lens is better than the 10-22?

Two completely different focal ranges. I don't see how one can replace the other unless your usuage has changed.

The 10-22 would serve the same "purpose" as the 17-35 had with my film camera...and with the 16-35 and a possible FF at some point (though I am totally happy with the 1.6 crop camera at this point). So,while they are not the same focal length, it would be a way for me to get back what I'm missing with the 17-35.
But! I wouldn't do that at the expense of IQ. I have always been happy with the older lens, but I've had it for about 12 years and I'm used to it....don't know what the newer version offers nor what the 10-22 offers.

Hi Steve...

I was in exactly the same position as you.... Kept on using my 17-35/2.8L from my film days for a long time.

I finally sold it a couple years ago, and bought the Tokina 12-24/4. The Toki feels almost identical to the L in size, shape and weight. Uses the same 77mm filters, too. It and the Canon 10-22 appear to have the best IQ of the UWA lenses on the market. The Canon is a little more plasticky (not bad though) and a couple hundred $ more expensive. It also doesn't come with a lens hood... and has a variable aperture.

DIfferences between the 17-35L and the Toki 12-24: Well, obviously f4 instead of f2.8... Frankly I haven't missed it (there is a Toki 11-16/2.8 if you really need f2.8 ). The "switch" to turn AF on and off is a push/pull of the focus ring on the Toki. And the zoom ring operates the reverse direction from the Canon lens. The Toki doesn't have USM, but is still fast focusing since you don't need to move the lens group much to focus an ultrawide.

I've never had the old 17-35, but I can tell you the 10-22 is an excellent lens. But be aware, that you will not easily get subject isolation like you might have been able to with your 17-35 and film camera. The 10-22 is slower and it's a wider focal length, so if you are used to shooting thin DOF ultrawide closeups, you might have a bit of trouble with the 10-22. That being said, I love it and am not trading it for a new 16-35.

I gotta admit...I'm not real with you here. I don't understand what you mean by the 10-22 serving the same purpose. As far as I can tell, you now only have a crop camera. Therefore if you want ultra-wide angle you have to get something in the 10-12mm range at its widest.

It really has nothing to do with image quality in my opinion. You either have ultra wide angle on your crop or you don't...simple as that. Is the 10-22mm the best UWA? That's definitely debatable but its easily in the top three.

Also the smaller sensor size of the crop cameras, make it harder to get the razor sharp depth of field that the full frame will give at the same focal length and f stop. That being said I still love my 1..6 sensor cameras and with the advent of my 7D, I am not likely to go full frame anytime soon! The 7D brings a new life to crop cameras, and I still have my "free 1.6 multiplier" without having to use a real multiplier on my telephotos. I woulld not sell the 17-35, but get the 10 -22 or what for the ultra wide.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #9164129
I gotta admit...I'm not real with you here. I don't understand what you mean by the 10-22 serving the same purpose. As far as I can tell, you now only have a crop camera. Therefore if you want ultra-wide angle you have to get something in the 10-12mm range at its widest.

It really has nothing to do with image quality in my opinion. You either have ultra wide angle on your crop or you don't...simple as that. Is the 10-22mm the best UWA? That's definitely debatable but its easily in the top three.

I think he means the 10-22mm on the crop serves the same purpose as his 17-35 on a film body. And he wonders if it will give him the same IQ. I doubt anyone could say, but most likely it will not be as good because the sensor size on the crop. A better comparision would be the lens on a 35mm film body compared to on a full frame DSLR.

definitely go for 10-22.
if have more budget: 1740L..

10-22!!!

I had a similar issue and I ended up with the 10-22 which should arrive in the next hour or so. I have a 24-70 instead of the 24-105, and when I decide to go Full Frame, I plan on keeping my crop body for a 2nd body and using it for my 10-22 and 70-200, at least until I can get the 16-35mm. It was a tough decision because I, probably like you, wanted to stick with L glass, but everyone said the 10-22 is a very sharp lens, so I am going to give it a try.

I don't think the sharpness of the 10-22 would disappoint you, but I agree with bohdank that they are not very similar in angular coverage. Yes, they overlap ranges a bit, but you'll find 10mm to be very much wider than 17mm on the same camera.

zshaft wrote in post #9164745
definitely go for 10-22.
if have more budget: 1740L..

They're virtually the same price.