10-22mm or 17-40mm L

[ginge]

Gday everyone

 

OK im after an ultra wide lense and have got a little stuck with

these 2 lenses. that being the EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM and the EF

17-40mm f4.0 L USM. Now there are many fors and against for both

but im just curious as to which one you would get and why?

[marknagel]

Since you are considering the 10-22, I assume you have a 1.6x Crop so only the 10-22mm would be ultra wide. I have it, its a good lens.

 

M

[trothwell]

Your previous post suggests that you will be using either a 350D or a 30D, so either of these will work fine on your camera. (Remember that EF-S lenses will not work on full-frame cameras, like the 5D or film SLRs.)

 

That said, if you don't plan on moving to a full-frame camera any time soon, and you really want ultra-wide angle capabilities, then the 10-22mm is probably the way to go. On the 350D/30D, the 10-22mm gives you approximately a 16-35mm full-frame equivalent, which gets pretty wide, while the 17-40mm gives you approximatly a 28-70mm full-frame equivalent, which certainly counts as wide, but not extremely.

 

The 17-40mm would give you a pretty nice "normal" range on your camera, though, and might be worth having for that reason.

[tim_kong]

That depends on how wide you want to go. If 28mm on a 35mm equivalent is wide enough for your needs, I would definitely go for the 17-40mm for its value, optic quality and full frame capability. Unless your needs are wider than 28mm equivalent, than you are left with the 10-22mm or some other 3rd party lens.

[bobatkins]

There's only one choice if you want a superwide. As stated above, 17mm on an APS-C sensor camera isn't very wide.

 

I have the 10-22 and it's a very good lens.

[Brad_]

The 10-22 is essentially the only lens I use on my cam for street pix. I like it a lot.

[robin_sibson1]

If you want an ULTRA wide lens for a 1.6-factor camera, then, as other posters have pointed out, your only choice from Canon is the 10~22, and although not perfect it seems to be about as good as an UW zoom gets. I am pretty happy with mine. There are some roughly comparable off-brand lenses that also seem to receive good reports.

 

However, the 10~22 only goes from UW to W - it is not a standard zoom, and usually needs to be teamed with another lens. My choice at present is to use it with the 24~105. This gives a 10x range with high quality throughout, IS from 24mm up, but has the disadvantages that there is no overlap, the changeover point is not ideal for some applications, and f/4 might not be enough for everyone. Teaming the 10~22 with the 24~70 provides a different tradeoff. Teaming it with one of the 17~XX zooms provides a different tradeoff again - you get quite a big overlap, and have to ask yourself whether you seriously meant UW, which must be a question if you were thinking of the 17~40 as an ALTERNATIVE to the 10~22. Unless you have the quite common phobia about buying anything that won't work on FF if there is an alternative that will do so, why aren't you considering the new 17~55? For 1.6-factor use it looks like a better choice than the 17~40 in all respects except somewhat greater weight and cost, and (easily corrected) greater level of vignetting.

[yakim_peled1]

The ONLY reason I envy EF-S users (I have a 1D) is their ability to mount the 10-22 on it.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[bill_fouche]

Yakim, you should also envy EF-S users for their ability to mount the 60mm Ef-S macro lens, which is both wonderful and rarely discussed, as well as the fact that many EF-S kits weigh less than 1.5 lbs - battery and lens included. The XT is almost pocketable compared to the 5D! (OK, not quite pocketable.)

[awindsor]

Have you considered the Sigma 12 - 24. It is quite wide on a 1.6x crop factor camera and projects a full image circle for a ludicrous angle of view on full frame. There are reports of considerable sample variation but a good sample is very good.

[sanjay_chugh1]

I had both a couple of weeks ago.

Wanted to keep the 17-40 because my brain wanted an L series lens.

But as mentioned on the 20D it's 27-64. Then a few days later I got the 10-22 and it's just too much fun to play with the superwide. Even taking pics indoors of family sitting indoors in the livingroom or at a party I was at over the weekend. Sure the perspective gets funny at the wide end but it's still cool and fun. I've used it for people snaps at the 22mm end as well, and they are fine as well.

 

I am very happy with my decision to keep the 10-22. I am glad I listened to Bob Atkins and other people.

 

The only thing I have to understand is flash usage on the wide end. Even with my 420Ex and at the 12mm setting and shooting indoors, the pciture isn't as bright as I would expect.

 

-- Sanjay

[jim_larson1]

I concur with much of what Robin said.

 

The 10-22 is an ultrawide. . .it generally will be used with another lens. (generally. . .one of the 24-xx lenses)

 

The 17-40 is not an ultrawide and has a different use. It can serve as a single general purpose lens, which the 10-22 cannot generally do.

 

So. . .do you need the 10-17 range or not? With what other lenses are you pairing these lenses?

 

The 17-55/2.8-IS vs the 17-40/4L is an entirely different discussion.

 

Me? I simply have no need for the 10-22 range. The 17-40 range is quite enough for me. Pair this with a 50/1.8 and I cover 90%+ of my shooting.

[jon_austin]

I bought a 17-40 for my 10D, before EF-S even existed, because I found that my 24-85 often wasn't wide enough.

 

Now I've replaced my 10D with a 20D, and my 24-85 with a 24-105, but I still have the 17-40, and it continues to adequately fill my wide-angle needs.

 

With its favorable reviews and current pricing, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a 10-22 if I needed the 10-16 FL range. As it is, however, I expect that I'll probably end up selling my 17-40 after I upgrade to FF -- due to lack of use -- since 24mm on FF is wider than 17mm on 1.6x.

[robin_sibson1]

Interesting thought about "how wide do you need", Jon. In my Canon FD days my widest lens was a 24/2.8. The original chrome-nose locking-ring version was nothing to write home about, but its New FD successor was a lens I liked a lot. When I changed to EOS in 1990, for many years I had nothing wider than 28mm (on a zoom) and definitely felt it was a limitation, and eventually I bought the consumer-grade but quite decent 20~35USM, which got me back into that territory. The upgrade to the 17~40 was for quality rather than width. On moving to 1.6-factor digital I found that the one time I continued to use film was precisely to get beyond the approx. 28mm equivalent of the 17mm lens on the 1.6-factor body, and so I knew I needed the 10~22 when I cashed in my last film camera. I do use the wide end of the 10~22, just as I used the wide end of the 17~40 on film, and would miss it if I did not have it, but probably not to the extent that I was frustrated by being limited to 28mm on film. So my "cut-off" of acceptability is a bit wider than yours, but probably does not extend all the way to the wide end of the 10~22, nice-to-have tho' that is.