17-40 f 4.0L vs 10-22 EFS Optical Quality

<p>I need to upgrade my glass on the wide end- currently all I have for really wide shots is the kit lens that came with my 20D (18-55 EFS). I have (and love) the 24-105L and use it most of the time, but sometimes it isn't wide enough. Has anyone had any experience comparing these two lenses? Both have good reviews, and there are obvious pros and cons for each, but I'm really interested in just the optical quality of each, ideally by someone who has used both.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

George</p>

 

<p>If 18mm and 24mm aren't wide enough, what makes you think 17mm will be?</p>

<p>The two lenses are different things altogether, in any case, so relative optical quality is more than a little irrelevant.<br>

On an APS_C camera one is an ultrawide zoom, the other is a midrange zoom. The fact that the 17-40 is an ultrawide on 35mm-sensor cameras is not relevant.</p>

<p>Would the 17-40mm be an improvement over the kit lens? Almost certainly, although at a substantial price. The 10-22mm, on the other hand, gives you a whole new range.</p>

<p>Let me clarify- the zoom range of the 18-55 is acceptable, the optical quality is not (hence my use of the term "upgrade"). It is also a lot wider than the the 24-105, at least enough to make a difference for me. Would 10 be even better? Yes, but not if I am trading off any noticeable optical quality. That's why I am wanting to know how the two compare- I know either would be an upgrade over the 18-55.</p>

<p>George</p>

<p>The most significant difference between these two excellent lenses is...</p>

<p>... that they cover quite different focal length ranges and thus perform quite different functions. I don't see how the two would be interchangeable. This makes "optical quality" seem like an odd primary concern, especially since both are fine.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I would consider Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 too</p>

<p>The 17-40 4,0L was the upgrade lens to the kit zoom for some years ago. Its still a good choise for someone who intend to upgrade the body to a full frame and want a superwide zoom for it then.<br>

If you intend to stay with your 20D or upgrade to a XXD or a XXXD (same sensor size), then there are better alternatives like the Tamron 17-55 2,8 or Sigma 17-50 2,8 EX OS and of course Canon 17-55 2,8 IS and 15-85 3,5-5,6 IS.<br>

Canon 10-22 is a great superwide zoom and makes a good companion to the 24-105 if you have interest in the superwide area.</p>

<p>My only reservation about the 10-22 mm (for re-sale value) is that you are locked/limited to users of EF-S bodies.</p>

Maybe you could try to rent or borrow them both?

 

They're very different.

 

That said, unless there's a full frame camera (or film SLR) in the very near future the 17-40 is not the logical

alternative.

 

The above mentioned are. (best reviews tend to go to the Tokina 11-16 but the differences are minimal in the current

range of crop ultra wides. Sigma has currently the widest and the Canon is great and safe.)

<p>Tokina 11-16 is great, I own one and I love it. I also own a 24-105 and I feel the gap between 16 and 24 is huge, that's why I would favor either 10-22 or 12-24</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Although I know these are very different lenses, this is my thought process:<br>

1. In my experience, 18 is wide enough for my current needs, but in the future (ie, retirement, travel, etc) having the flexibility to go to 10 is not a bad thing. Unless I win the lottery I will not be buying a full-frame. I do have a 7D in addition to the 20D.<br>

2. I am extremely happy with the L series lenses I own (a 24-105 and a 70-200)<br>

3. I have several mid-grade Canons (gold ring) I owned for years before getting the L's, and while they are better than the kit lens they are not as good as the L-series. The L's are more contrasty and much sharper. I would never put the 28-105 I have up against the 24-105.<br>

4. The 10-22 is mid-grade, so in my mind and experience contrast and sharpness are not certain to equal an L. On the other hand, I have have heard good things about the 10-22. </p>

 

<p>We use the 10-22 and the 24-105 on a 50D and a XTi. It's a great combination. Quite frankly I use the 10-22 quite a lot - I look for ways to take advantage of it's width. I'm not picky enough to see any signficant differences between the quality of these two lenses; and we have not tried the 17-40 because we don't need it so I can't help you with that comparison. When we put the 10-22 and 24-105 with the 70-200 we have what we think is the perfect trifecta for what we need.</p>

<p>Not exactly what you asked, but I know we're happy with the combination we've chosen.</p>

<p>I think I may be right by saying that no Canon EF-S lens (as good as it might be - even when it beats the pants off many EF lens) has been awarded the 'L' status. I feel this is more some sort of Canon marketing strategy. The Canon EF-S17-55mm and the 10-22mm for example should perhaps wear a small 'l' badge if I had anything to do with it!</p>

<p>It looks like you are thinking of replacing a kit lens with an L that’s ok but at 17mm you have a 27mm equivalent lens not a wide angel.<br>

If you would like wide angel then you only have one choice 10-22mm. That is 16-35mm equivalent. I have both 10-22mm on the 30D and 17-40mm on the 5D II. I shoot landscape and they are on the camera 90% of the time.<br>

Jim</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The 10-22 is mid-grade, so in my mind and experience contrast and sharpness are not certain to equal an L. On the other hand, I have have heard good things about the 10-22."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is risky to make such assumptions about a lens because it is or is not an L lens. While all L lenses share excellent build quality and higher prices, they do not always perform better than certain non-L alternatives. For example, if you were looking for Canon lenses that might be options relative to your 17-40 idea, you would consider the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L and the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>The latter lens is not an L lens... but it is almost certainly the best performer on a cropped sensor body among the group. It offers:</p>

<ul>

<li>Image quality that is at least as good on a cropped sensor camera as the two L lenses and in some ways better.</li>

<li>f/2.8</li>

<li>Image stabilization</li>

<li>A larger focal length range</li>

<li>Quite decent build quality</li>

</ul>

<p>I shoot full frame rather than crop. I own the 17-40 and did at one time us it on a cropped sensor camera. Here it was fine but not great. Considering the earlier onset of diffraction blur on crop sensor cameras, you basically have three apertures to work with when using the 17-40: f/4, f/5.6, and f/8. At f/4 this lens is not outstanding in the corners, though its center performance is fine. (It is a wonderful lens for subjects like landscape on a full frame camera, where it can be shot stopped down, thus greatly improving the corners.)</p>

<p>If I were looking for the best lens among these three for a cropped sensor body, there is no question in my mind that I would get the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. However, if I needed wider coverage I would consider the also-fine EFS 10-22, by all reports an excellent performer. I would not rule out having both lenses.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>It would be great if a simple question could get a simple answer. The problem is that we don't know all the things that are important to you. There are many things that are important besides image quality( even though it is of prime importance to many of us) For example; the 17-40 is a constant lens and the front lens does not rotate when zooming. This is importaqnt to me because I use filters and do not want to reset filter orientation when zooming. The simple answer is-Get the best lens you can afford)</p>

<p>George, I have the 10-22mm, the 17-40mm and a 20D. I also have a 5d MKII that I use the 17-40mm on to get similar view as the 20D with the 10-22mm. I actually prefer the 10-22mm to the 17-40mm on either the 20D or the 5D. There is a huge difference between 10mm and 17mm on the crop camera though - a whole new ballgame that requires new skills. The 10-22mm is almost a specialist lens and I think you'll really like it because it will bring new challenges and opportunities - the 17-40mm is going to give you what you have today with perhaps a little better quality. My 10-22mm is excellent, it gives the 17-40mm a run for it's money any day. I'd say the 17-40mm is built bit better but that's about it in my book. The whole key to the really wide angled lens like the 10-22mm is to position something very close in the photo. So for example, you might be taking a landscape shot but have a rock 6 inches from the front of the lens, this gives a really deep 3-D effect and I happen to like that. Many of the shots you see of things like the sliding rocks at the raceway in Death Valley are taken this way - the close objects are really really close and you have to now think like that. Another effect you get with the really wide lens that you'll never see with a 17 or 18mm is where the clouds in the sky look like a flat sheet coming at you. You should Google photos like the above and see if you like these kinds of effects and if so you can't go wrong with the 10-22mm. So 17-40mm = more of the same as that you have now, 10-22mm = whole new class of photography.<br>

Good luck with your decision</p>

<p>I had the 10-22 for use on a 40D. I found the variable aperture frustrating, slow at the long end, and annoying (I use aperture priority quite a bit of the time and it is the only variable-aperture zoom I have owned. I didn't like it changing on me when I zoomed), fringing ugly, and just not sharp in the corners. I sold it for the Tokina 11-16 2.8--a great all-around ultrawide angle. <br>

I also have the 17-40 L and agree it is a totally different animal on a crop sensor, where 40mm is just about a normal lens and 17 is pretty wide but not ultrawide--a great walkaround lens, light, but solid. I took it into the drenching mist of a waterfall with no fear. On full frame the 17-40 L suffers from the same blurry corners as the 10-22, but you said you were unlikely to go there.<br>

To summarize: wouldn't own the 10-22 again. Love the Tokina. Love the 17-40L but it is a different type of lens</p>

<p>17-40</p><div></div>

<p>10-22</p><div></div>

<p>Both great.</p>

<p>The L might be slightly more "golden" in its hue and the 10-22 more "real" but that just might be my eyes or my post processing.</p>

<p>All the best, Matthijs.</p>

<p>(Post scriptum: to me the most important thing about shooting UWA is having a big viewfinder to compose with, not the exact lens used.)</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses. It appears that the 10-22 may be a close performer to the 17-40 in the areas that I was asking about. It sounds like it is vastly superior in quality to the other mid-grade lenses I have owned in the past. </p>

<p>George</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Three weeks ago I have bought canon 17-40L. when I used it with my 5D I feel it is very wide and may be it is more convenient for internal photography , so I putted it on the cropped sensor 20D.<br /> One thing to mention that this lens has a reasonable wide distortion as well as it has a very good sharpness.<br /> The following capture is with ( 17-40L + canon 20D ) @ 17mm<br /> .</p><div></div>

<p>Hi,<br>

As an owner of both lenses. I can share some of my thoughts.<br>

I had the 10-22efs first. It was used mostly on landscape and interior shoots (RE stuff). It works really well with my 30d. Let's be clear, if it wasn't designed purely for crop cam, it could be an L lens. It has all the L elements within it's body. Amongst the UWA, this is in my mind the best when I was researching years ago. CA and distortion is better managed than Sigma and Tamron versions. Perhaps the new Tokina is better. I don't know.<br>

Later I have the 17-40L as a kit lens replacement. It is a nice walk around lens. Coupled with my 50 1.8mkI, it made for a great travel combo. The colours are saturated and contrasty. I don't think the corner sharpness is as good as the 10-22efs though. weather sealing is a nice feature, but never saw any need for it. The hood is massive and annoying to fit into smaller camera bags. Interestingly, this hood fit the 10-22efs too!<br>

Now that I have a 5d camera, the 10-22efs became redundant. So I sold it to fund a 135L. Let me tell you the resale value of this UWA is awesome. I only 'lost' $50 in resale after 4 yrs of use!<br>

OP, if you plan to stick with a crop cam and want a UWA, the 10-22efs doesn't disappoint. Fast USM AF, IF, sharp, CA & distortion control makes this a great lens. Too bad it didn't come with a hood. Them 77mm size hood is $$$.</p>

<p>Canon 17-40 is an amazing lens, the best landscape zoom lens. It will be good to use when you want move into FF in the future as well.</p>

<p>I would focus on upgrading that 20D first. The Canon kit lenses are actully pretty good in terms of image quality and is problaby not the issue. I would keep the kit lens and upgrade to a better camera like the Rebel T2I which is probably around the same price as a 17-40F4L. If you are going to keep the 20D I would look at either Sigma, Tamron or Tokina lenses in the 10-22 range. You would get a lot of over lap having a 17-40 and a 24-105 the 10-22 and 24-105 would give you more for your money.</p>