10-22 vs 17-40

<p>I am considering the 10-22 for my 7D, but when I look at the 17-40 I keep thinking that I might get better quality from it as its an L glass, I know that there is a 7mm difference but the o/p quality is important.<br>

Any recommendations please.<br>

Thanks in advance</p>

<p>Simon,<br>

I own the 17-40 but not the 10-22. I think that the 17-40 is a great lens, but you need to know that it is not Ultra-wide on a aps-c sensor camera. I use it on a 20d and while it is fairly wide at 17 (27mm on FF), the 10-22 would be much wider. <br>

As for quality images, I have heard the 10-22 is very highly regarded. Don't think just because something does not have an L classification that it won't have great IQ. Some of what you are paying for with the 17-40 is build quality such as weather sealing.</p>

<p>Also... do you plan on upgrading to a FF? (with a 7d i'm guessing not) If not, the EF-S would be a fine lens. If you do, then you may want to get the 17-40 as the EFS will not work on a FF, or film EOS.</p>

<p>I was once considering FF, but the 7D wiped that out from my head.</p>

<p>What will you use these lens' for? 10-22 is a great f-8 lens so it gets tricky using it. Make no mistake it's a fun lens but when I had a choice, I picked the 17-55 2.8 IS over the 2 your looking at. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>I need it for landscapes and interiors.</p>

<p>This question, or something very close to it, comes up repeatedly on this and other forums; do a search.</p>

<p>The short answer is that these two lenses are not substitutes for one another on 1.6-factor, although there is an interesting question about 7D+10~22 v. 5DII+17~40.</p>

<p>The 10~22 is an ultra-wide-angle zoom, and is the only Canon offering of this type for 1.6-factor. There are off-brand alternatives. The 10~22 is an excellent lens.</p>

<p>The 17~40 was a popular standard zoom for 1.6-factor at the time when the only EF-S lens worth considering was the 17~85; my tests showed that the 17~40 was optically superior, but of course the 17~40 does not have IS and as a standard zoom on 1.6-factor it has a very limited zoom range. Now there is the very highly regarded 17~55/2.8IS, and the more recently introduced 15~85IS (which at least appears to be considerably better than the 17~85, as it should be for its much higher price), and in my view either of these makes much more sense for 1.6-factor than the 17~40.</p>

<p>Very different lenses - the question here isn't so much "which is a better lens" as it is "what focal lengths do you want to cover?" The 10-22 is a true ultra wide angle lens on your camera, while the 17-40 covers somewhat wide to very slightly telephoto ranges.</p>

<p>(If you were comparing a full-frame camera using the 17-40 to a cropped sensor camera using the 10-22 the comparison would have more validity)</p>

<p>I shoot the 17-40 on a full frame camera where it is very fine for stopped down landscape and similar photography. I shot it on a cropped sensor camera some years ago before I had full frame and my feelings about it on crop are mixed. It can certainly provide very fine image quality in the center of the frame, and its focal length range is useful if you want to cover the somewhat wide to slightly long range. On the downside, the f/4 maximum aperture is not very large for a lens in this focal length range on crop, and corner performance at the largest apertures is not exactly astounding.</p>

<p>If you are worried about "L v. non-L," let that go and just consider the performance characteristics of the two lenses relative to your needs. If it helps, imagine how your decision would be affected if both or neither had the red "L" ring.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Looking at the 7D but for now using a T1i with 2 L's 24-105 and 70-200 F4 the only other lens that I have is the 10-22. It is a super lens. Very happy with the IQ and you can't ask for much more fov.<br>

Go here for more info and sample shots: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>I have the 17-40L and I love it one my 30D and 40D. It's image and build quality can't be beat at the price. I use it when I want a wide zoom. I haven't used the 10-22 but it has good reviews and is indeed a wide zoom for crop sensors.</p>

<p>The 17-40 is really wide on my Elan 7E, but it is less useful as general purpose wide angle.</p>

<p>So, if you are shooting crowed interiors, get the 10-22. If you want a good wide zoom, get the 17-40.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>I have the 17-40mm f4 lens, my only zoom lens, and while it's an excellent lens I park it most of the time and only use it with my EOS-1N (film body). My 5D has the Ee focusing screen which works with f2.8 and faster lens (the rest of my lenses are equal or faser) and has problems metering with the f4 lens. In hindsight I would have bought the 16-35mm f2.8 lens.</p>

<p>For interiors the 10-22 is going to serve you much better than the 17-40 on your camera. I have shot a lot of interiors and you need a pretty wide lens to do it right. The 17mm on your sensor will leave you pretty frustrated most of the time. You'll be just a few mm's too long for almost everything and with the 10-22 you will have much better flexibility in your framing.</p>

<p>Landscapes are doable with either. In that case, it is more getting your eye used to seeing with your lens. I pretty much feel that any lens can work in landscape because it is you that will learn to see with what you have.</p>

<p>I own the 17-40 and use on a 40D. I do borrow my 10-22 from my son quite frequently. For landscape I find myself at 17mm on my 17-40 most times. I have just as much faith in the 10-22 as I do the 17-40. Image quality is superb.</p>

<p>Occasionally someone reports that ultra-wides are difficult to use. I don't find that to be true. It is a great tool for creativity.</p>

<p>Choose your lens by the range you will use most and don't worry about image quality; both are excellent lenses.</p>

<p>I have both lens you mention.</p>

<p>Considering image quality alone (and not "Angle of View), my 17-40 produces better images than my 10-22 when both are used on my 40D.</p>

<p>I also think that my 17-40 gives me better results when used on my film camera, than my 10-22 gives me when it is used on my 40D.</p>

<p>I'm not saying the 10-22 is a bad lens. The differences are observable, but, not huge. My 10-22 images are lower in contrast and not as sharp as my 17-40 images. I am able to correct the contrast and (to some degree) the sharpness with my computer editing software.</p>

<p>However, as many others noted above, these are very different lenses when both are used on a camera like the 7D.</p>

<p>My advice to you would be to rent some wide angle lenses and see which one(s) will do the job for you. Also, if you will be paid to shoot interiors, you might want to consider a different camera with a larger sensor (you can rent those too).</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>Get the 10-22 lens, I own it and it's optical and build quality is in the same class as my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 (better than the 50/1.4). It's a great lens, I recommend the lens hood if you buy it. The 10mm end is fun, it's so —W I D E!</p><div></div>

<p>Deleted —double post.</p>

<p>I have owned both, image quality is basically equal IMO. Its just a question of focal length. The 10-22 would be the lens I suggest. </p>

<p>I've used the 17-40 for several years on cropped sensor cameras and have been pretty happy with it at f/5.6 and smaller. I've not used the 10-22 but would certainly go that way if I weren't planning to go to FF. Here in the UK the cost of the 10-22 is a big offset against a 5D2 while I keep the 17-40. All of the reviews I've read suggest the 10-22 is a very good lens indeed and I'd personally have no hesitation in buying it. With the 7D, I'd certainly go with it especically as you've mentioned interiors.</p>

<p>The EF-s 15-85 IS USM is a great choice too: wider & longer than the 17-40 but, in my opinion, a little better IQ. Of course it's slow (F3.5-5.6) but the 4-stop IS is impressive. The main advantages of the 17-40 is you can use it on FF and it has weather seals. </p>

<p>what are your other lenses? I had a 10-22mm but sold it to buy a 17-40mm b/c I never used the 10-22mm and wanted better glass in the focal range I use most often. If you have a good wide to normal zoom, then get the 10-22mm. For landscapes and especially interiors, the 10-22mm would seem like the best choice to me, but for a good wide walkaround lens, the 10-22mm was to short for me.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your advice I really appreciate it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what are your other lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nathan, As for a standard zoom. I have a 24-105mm which is not wide enough.</p>

<p>The 10-22 is a very good lens. I'd say the image quality from it is as good (or better) than the 17-40 on a full-frame camera.<br>

17mm is wide on a 7D but a 10-22 is a LOT wider! Once you try the ultra-wide, you'll probably be hooked.</p>

<p>Simon, the 17-40 is not likely to be wide enough for interiors, and the 10-22 will compliment your 24-105 nicely. </p>

<p>I have used the 17-40 on my 7D since I bought the camera back in October, and I have been very pleased with it. It's not ultra-wide on the 7D but it's wide enough to do great landscapes and of course the IQ is outstanding. I have been considering the 10-22 as well to compliment the 24-105 I just bought, so this thread has been very helpful.</p>

<p>I have both lenses, and I would never contemplate placing the 17-40L on any of my crop cameras. Even aside from the obvious fact that the 17-40 is a totaly different effective fl lens on a crop camera, I prefer the image quality of the 10-22 overall. The EF-S 10-22 is simply a better lens.</p>

<p>My main source of photo income has been shooting furnished interiors for the multi family housing industry for quite a few years, and the EF-S 10-22 is hands down, my bread and butter lens. It is wonderful in design, damn near bullet proof, and it just never lets me down. I bought it when I bought my first or second 30D, and it has been taking a commercial beating clear through the 40D, 50D, and 7D additions to my work kit. I would never trade that lens for all the tea in China.</p>

<p>If you are considering the two lenses for a crop camera, you are considering two entirely different lenses. A person who uses a 17-40 as their widest lens on a crop camera simply does not own an ultra wide lens for their camera. The difference in view is startling!</p>

<p>That's just my two cents, and I offer it as a big fan and user of Canon lenses with red and green stripes around the barrel. Still, there are plenty of people out there who just won't have anything to do with a non-L lens. You have to choose..... By the way, ALWAYS buy and use the lens hood. Don't worry about the cost. It is the best protection that lens can ever have. Look at the pic of my crop sensor "Troika" of most used and abused lenses, and you can see the abuse the hoods have taken over the years, yet the lenses are as new. Canon hoods are amazing... This shot is several years old, as a 30D is still a part of my working kit.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2945652177_a04b5811f4.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Here is a shot at 10 mm in the Arizona sun with a 40D body. Pretty much directly converted from RAW, as the blobs of dust on the sensor are still there...<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2343757727_076dd5fb6f_b.jpg" alt="" /><br>

More Arizona at 10 mm, 40D, complete with dust balls..<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/2344583140_9a4334e0c3_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /><br>

Here is an Everglades shot at 10 mm with a 40D...<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2179/2184110851_c74e9ca72b_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is a quick crop of the jpg image above, showing the detail of the line on the walkway. I suppose I should re-convert the images with up to date software, and dump the dust bunnies, but these were just quick converted shots uploaded for other people present at the time to choose what they would like to have printed, and I never removed them. In any event, they serve to show the fun you can have with a 10-22 mm lens on a crop camera. The 50D, and 7D really shine with the 10-22, but it still performs well with the 30D, and the 40D, as shown here. It's a wonderful lens that has little in the way of bad habits, distortion, and annoying aberations. Even with the sun in the frame, it handles flare with grace compared to most lenses in the class. It is so durable and reliable, with instant, silent focus that I never found an alternate choice that really makes the cut. </p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4529840963_9af251fdea_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>