Thinking of replacing my EF-S 10-22mm with a fullframe wide angle zoom lens

<p>I have a 6D and 50D. Was thinking of replacing my Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 with either the EF 17-40mm f4L USM or Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 II DG HSM. </p>

<p>I am quite happy with my Canon 10-22mm. It's just that it's a waste that I can't use it on my 6D [note that I am not thinking of making a modification to enable the 10-22mm to enable it to be used on my 6D]. My main criteria driving this change would be to get a better lens for the same amount of money that I can get after selling the Canon 10-22mm. I haven't used nor tested both the Canon 17-40mm and Sigma 12-24mm yet and was wondering what fellow forummers here might think about this choice.</p>

<p>I realise that the Canon 10-22mm is extremely useful for my needs on a cropped body sensor and I'm willing to sacrifice the UWA range. I would appreciate opinions on which is the fullframe better lens.</p>

<p>I have the 12-24mm and, in my opinion, the 17-40mm probably has the better image quality. It also has a fixed aperture of f/4 through the zoom range unlike the 12-24mm.</p>

<p>I like the 12-24mm because it really is super wide on full frame and the lines stay straight which is nothing short of remarkable for such an ultra-wide lens. The downsides are that it is very susceptible to flare, it is not exactly razor sharp, you can't realistically use filters, the front element is easily damaged due to the protrusion and you have the usual Sigma quality control problems i.e. buy 5 lenses and pick the one that actually works properly.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did just what you did. I sold my EF-S 10-22mm and replaced it with the 17-40mm. I was moving from crop to full frame. I actually like the 17-40 and I think the color and contrast is better from the L lens. Whether it was 10mm on the crop or 17mm on the full frame it never seemed wide enough. I eventually went with a 14mm prime to address that. If you really need a zoom and want wider than 16mm, the options dwindle rapidly. </p>

<p>For some reason (on the 10-22) I was always zooming in from 10mm just slightly (so probably using about 11mm). I can not recollect any more if I was having a filter vignette issue or just didn't care for the corner sharpness. </p>

<p>The 17-40mm (@17mm) is not forgiving if you have thicker ringed filters or are using a cokin 'P' series holder. And the 17-40mm is the first lens that I actually noticed the vignette at 17mm and f4 immediately on the rear display. During the purchase, I took a test shot of the hazy sky (one a full frame) and was like wow - look how dark those corners are.</p>

<p>I do like how close the 17-40mm focuses! I like the build quality and the focus speed is great. It's a decent lens to use around 35mm at f4 as well for general people portraits, etc. I think you will like the 17-40's image quality and build but on a FF. Its a great video lens (but breathes if focus is pulled). It won't feel hugely different than your 10-22 on your crop camera but I think you will like it on the 6D better than the 10-22 on the crop camera. </p>

<p>Oh yeah, the swap should almost be scratch. I remember selling the 10-22 for $550 and buying the 17-40 (with box, etc) for $515. And I think both have 77mm filter rings.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Congratulations Kenn. You fell right into the trap Canon set years ago when they created the EF-S lens mount. They probably figured most people would do exactly what you did and the other posters and I did. Bought into both. Result, Canon gets rich and we get miserable agonizing over all this nonsense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Congratulations Kenn. You fell right into the trap Canon set years ago when they created the EF-S lens mount. They probably figured most people would do exactly what you did and the other posters and I did. Bought into both. Result, Canon gets rich and we get miserable agonizing over all this nonsense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're probably among the few actually miserable and agonizing over gear. Most of us enjoy the journey. I, like most photogs, enjoy buying, selling and horse trading gear as much as shooting. The more "gears" the merrier! Besides, it's a really cheap pastime compared to other popular hobbies such remarrying, sailboats, gambling, drugs, airplanes or vintage cars.</p>

<p>If I had a crop body and full frame, I'd hang onto the 10-22, and pick up a 17-40.</p>

<p>The 10-22 is an excellent lens, pricier than the 17-40 I believe.</p>

<p>I've had both for some time now, but my wife and both having just full frame, I passed the 10-22 over to one of my sons who's shooting crop.</p>

<p>Having a 10-22 means there is absolutely no need for me to ever go FF, because 16mm is plenty wide enough for me. Of course if I had a FF camera, I would want a 17-40L to use with that camera, and with prices for the original 5D falling under $500 now, it is coming closer to the price range in which I tend to enjoy the 'buying, selling and horse trading gear' part of the hobby ;-)</p>

<p>You may also consider a used 16-35 f2.8 Mk 1. Mine is now 'back' being used on a 5D, see my earlier post. </p>

<p>I still have my Sigma 10-20mm for my APS-C cameras, and I got the discontinued ancestor of the Sigma 12-24, the Sigma 15-30mm for my 35mm-sensor. If you can find it, it is real bargain.</p>

<p>I suppose a few people complained about having to buy different lenses for their 6cm film cameras as well as for their 35mm cameras. Your reward is that you have two different formats for different purposes.</p>

<p>I have a bunch of Sigma lenses and have NOT encountered the much talked about "quality problems" so far.</p><div></div>

Appreciate all the responses. You

guys rock! I jumped onto the Canon

bandwagon because of Chuck

Westfall, haha ; )

 

 

The 17-40L would be a front runner

if not for the presence of my 24-

105L which spends most of its time

on the 6D.

 

 

Just realised that Tokina has a 16-

28mm/f2.8 fullframe lens. Wonder

how would it fare in comparison to

the Sigma 12-24mm, especially since

the Sigma has variable aperture?

<p>Kenn, I have both lenses and have never tried a 10-22. So while I can compare the 17-40 with the 12-24, I can't compare either lens with your 10-22. ;-)</p>

<p>The 12-24 is one of my favorite AND least used lenses. When you need it, you really need it. It's quite respectably sharp around f/8. Sure, it has some edge softness, but what do you expect from the widest of the ultrawide? You'll find that CA is extremely well controlled on a good copy. My primary complaint about this lens is that it is so wide as to be of limited use. It's a brilliant lens for architectural work, but for landscapes (which I do more often), the last 4 or 5 mm of the range is just too much -- way too stretchy, so to speak.</p>

<p>The 17-40 will give you more overall functionality than the 12-24, as well as much less flair and ghosting. (This lens may have the least flair of all of my lenses.) Sharpness similar at f/8 (again, compared to a good copy of the 12-24), and CA is even better controlled. Edge sharpness isn't stellar, but then again, it's an ultrawide. (It's still pretty good at f/8.) The lens is smaller than the 12-24, doesn't have the bulging front element, will take front filters if you need one, and is just nicer to use. And the zoom range is much more useful. For my own purposes, 16 or 17 mm is the widest I really want to zoom for most work.</p>

<p>So for a general purpose ultrawide, if that's what you're wanting, I'd probably recommend the 17-40. The 12-24 is much more of a niche lens.</p>

<p>PS You mention your 24-105 as a reason perhaps that you want to squeeze the top end of your ultrawide range as close as possible to 24mm. I'll mention that it's good to have some overlap in zoom range. Not only does this reduce the need to change lenses back and forth, but it lets you avoid the extremes of the zoom ranges. The 24mm end of the 24-105 isn't all that great. If I'd far rather shoot 25mm, or even 30mm, with the 17-40. I find that my 17-40 complements my 24-105 well. I also have overlap in the short tele end, with my 70-200/4IS, and I wouldn't have it any other way.</p>

<p>I didn't realize that you already had the 24-105mm. That's a great lens, that can easily be used to stitch panoramas of the Grand Canyon, if you want a wider perspective than 24mm. I own that lens and I've supplemented it with the excellent Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG diagonal fisheye.</p>

<p>It's amazing how different the perspective of 15mm can be from 17mm on a full-frame body (I use the 5D MkIII). I use it as is and defished. I love it for big-sky shots. I defish about 90% of my shots, but it's interesting for occasional special effects. Canon discontinued their 15/f2.8, but they're available on Ebay at around $100 more than a new Sigma. (I've used both and either is great).</p>

<p><strong> Defished Landscape</strong><br>

<a title="Clouds and rays by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3768/9500148700_62c7c59cfe_c.jpg" alt="Clouds and rays" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

Jamie & Brad, thanks for vote of

confidence in the 17-40L.

 

Mendel, Frank & JDM, I haven't made

up my mind but I appreciate your

views and I may just keep my 10-

22mm. I've always had fun shooting

with this lens.

 

James, I like the 16-35 Mk I but I

can't justify the price tag when

I'm a hobbyist and not a pro.

 

 

Sarah, thank you for a most

detailed and useful review from a

Sigma 12-24mm user. Talking about

overlap I'm not fearful of it : )

My other lens is a 70-200 F4L IS.

 

David, that's a good landscape shot

and I see the benefits of using a

fish eye lens. Too bad Canon sees

fit to price their 8-15mm/f4L some

way above what I'd be comfortable

to pay.

 

Still looking forward to hear what

Tokina 16-28 owners have to say.

<blockquote>

<p>David, that's a good landscape shot and I see the benefits of using a fish eye lens. Too bad Canon sees fit to price their 8-15mm/f4L some way above what I'd be comfortable to pay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want to play with a diagonal fisheye for cheap, consider the <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/zenitar16.htm">Zenitar 16/2.8</a>.</p>

<p>Without defishing, a diag fisheye eliminates the stretchy edges (and obviously introduces other distortions, as there is no free lunch). Take a look at the Thursday Canon shots thread for a fisheye of a sunflower. You can get away with the distortion if you avoid straight lines or shoot them through the center of the frame. Sometimes this is a useful way to get a wider perspective w/o the stretch if you really need it -- for instance when you want people in the margins not to look like Coneheads.</p>

<p>Kenn, another problem with the 8-15mm is that automatic defishing software is not available, that I could find. Both the Canon 15mm and Sigma 15mm (and probably some others) can been defished with several software. I use DxO Otpics Pro, which does it automatically and allows me to defish from 0 to 100%.</p>

<p>Here's a large interior shot of Denver International Airport, full of straight and perpendicular lines, easily shot with the 15mm. It starts with 180-degrees (watch your feet) and defishing only takes off around 10-degrees.</p>

<p><a title="De-fished Image by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5524/9375674332_7590d25ece_c.jpg" alt="De-fished Image" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG before defishing:</p>

<p><a title="Fisheye Shot by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3734/9375672044_acf8c8625e_c.jpg" alt="Fisheye Shot" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 17-40L would be a front runner if not for the presence of my 24- 105L which spends most of its time on the 6D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On a recent long hike, I had 70-200, 24-105 and 17-40 with me. The latter more-or-less lived on my 5DIII.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1057835">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1057835</a></p>

<p>If you like the 10-22 on APS-C you will like the 17-40 on FF. As to the overlap with the 24-105 I wouldn't worry about it. The 17-40 makes a nice normal zoom for the 50D, or you could put the 24-105 on the 50D and the 17-40 on the 6D and using two bodies you will have 17 - 168 mm coverage. The shortcomings of the 24-105 are not so obvious when used on APS-C.</p>

Good question and comments. I still use a Canon 50D camera with the 10-22 EF-S and other lenses. Regardless of the "trap" with the EF-S mount, it is excellent glass and get good shots with it in the smaller sensor. So I'm thinking that I'll keep that lens for as long as I use the 50D with the APS-C format.