10-22 or 17-40L

I do a lot of traveling and I take mostly touristy shots... I can get either one of these lens from a friend who runs a local camera store for the same price... going to Roma and London next year... which lens would I get more use out of ? I know the 10-22mm is an ultra wide angle that would help me get some of the larger buildings all in the shot... but I hear the 17-40L will do great also and after all it's an L which I do not own yet... let me know what you think... Thanks

As the 10-22 is in the running I am assuming that you have a crop camera. I am also assuming that you have something covering the 17-40 range so I'm suggesting the 10-22.
First, the 17-40 on a crop camera is really not a very good lens. It is neither wide nor long and has a very strange range for a cropper. The 17-40 is very close to the equivalent 10-22 in range on a full frame camera. So, 10-22 on a crop 17-40 on a full frame.

focus.pocus wrote in post #9170149
I do a lot of traveling and I take mostly touristy shots... I can get either one of these lens from a friend who runs a local camera store for the same price... going to Roma and London next year... which lens would I get more use out of ? I know the 10-22mm is an ultra wide angle that would help me get some of the larger buildings all in the shot... but I hear the 17-40L will do great also and after all it's an L which I do not own yet... let me know what you think... Thanks

i vote for 1740. it's very usable.
i ever had 1022, and i felt it's too wide for traveling. something inconvenient for me. wide is good, but too wide is sometime unusable (well, for me).
beside,i dont like the distortion of 1022 (because it's too wide?)..

with 1740, now i can use it for family/group photo. very usable on that range...

focus.pocus wrote in post #9170149
I do a lot of traveling and I take mostly touristy shots... I can get either one of these lens from a friend who runs a local camera store for the same price... going to Roma and London next year... which lens would I get more use out of ? I know the 10-22mm is an ultra wide angle that would help me get some of the larger buildings all in the shot... but I hear the 17-40L will do great also and after all it's an L which I do not own yet... let me know what you think... Thanks

Ya, what gjl711 said

There's a very large difference between 17mm and 10mm. On a crop body camera, 17mm is wide, but definitely not ultra-wide. I'd consider the EF-S 17-55mm over the 17-40mm for a crop body, and if you're looking for an ultrawide angle lens, only the 10-22 (or Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16) will give you that.

17-40 on a crop is more of a replacement for the kit lens for me. If you really want UWA go for 10-22 but I'm not sure you'll like it, especially for touristy pics, there'll be a lot of distortion.

Focus.
What is in your current lens collection?

gjl711 wrote in post #9170170
As the 10-22 is in the running I am assuming that you have a crop camera. I am also assuming that you have something covering the 17-40 range so I'm suggesting the 10-22.
First, the 17-40 on a crop camera is really not a very good lens. It is neither wide nor long and has a very strange range for a cropper. The 17-40 is very close to the equivalent 10-22 in range on a full frame camera. So, 10-22 on a crop 17-40 on a full frame.

yes I am sorry it's a crop...

Nick5 wrote in post #9170404
Focus.
What is in your current lens collection?

just cheapos... 18-55is 18-200is 75-300 55-250is 50mm 1.8

I think the 17-40 is a great lens on a full frame body but not the most useful range on a crop camera. Do you feel that the image quality or aperture range on your current EF-S lenses are holding you back? I have the Sigma 10-20mm and find the range useful but not something I use very often. There is a good bit of distortion so you have a significant trade-off to consider when using it. However, I can think of a number of shots I've gotten with that lens that wouldn't have been possible with anything else in my kit.

Mike

OpenTrackRacer wrote in post #9171184
...Do you feel that the image quality or aperture range on your current EF-S lenses are holding you back? ...

I got curious so I took a peek at Photozones lens tests and surprisingly the 18-55 does really well against the 17-40. The 17-40 clearly beats out the 18-55 in vignetting and CA, but surprisingly the 18-55 does better in resolution.
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

I have both .. and use both. I like the 10-22 .. it's a very sharp lens. The 17-40 is also pin sharp and basically became my walkabout lens.

gjl711 wrote in post #9171212
I got curious so I took a peek at Photozones lens tests and surprisingly the 18-55 does really well against the 17-40. The 17-40 clearly beats out the 18-55 in vignetting and CA, but surprisingly the 18-55 does better in resolution.
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

Plus it has IS which is super handy when traveling. Imho you already have the perfect walk around lens if you have the 18-55mm IS. Small, light, sharp, great IS. It's slow though, if you need a fast lens get the 17-55 f2.8 or the tamron one.

focus.pocus wrote in post #9170861
just cheapos... 18-55is 18-200is 75-300 55-250is 50mm 1.8

My suggestion is to:
sell off one of the two 75-300 or 55-250 (i'd suggest keeping 55-250mm)
sell off 18-200 (why haven't you done so already? you got 18-55mm + 55-250mm)

Then,

sell off 18-55mm and get 17-40mm

or

keep 18-55mm and get 10-22 (My recommendation.)

Also maybe consider tokina 11-16mm? I heard people say it's an excellent lens, you save yourself some dollars too.

OpenTrackRacer wrote in post #9171184
I think the 17-40 is a great lens on a full frame body but not the most useful range on a crop camera. Do you feel that the image quality or aperture range on your current EF-S lenses are holding you back? I have the Sigma 10-20mm and find the range useful but not something I use very often. There is a good bit of distortion so you have a significant trade-off to consider when using it. However, I can think of a number of shots I've gotten with that lens that wouldn't have been possible with anything else in my kit.

Mike

I am looking for better quality photos actually... I was considering the 10-22mm for quality and the wide angle for some of the tight views in Europe... spwnd a lot of time there and sometimes you just can't back up far enough on the narrow streets to get it all in... I was considering the 17-40 not so much for the range but more for the quality of an L lens...

and also thanks to all of you for your opinions...