EFS 10-22 on 1.6x camera vs. 17-35mm/2.8L on film

[larry h.]

OK, I broke down and am considering going all digital with my EOS

system (I sometimes relive *true* photography with my Minolta

SRT102 ;-) I just bought an Epson R1800 and have some time over the

summer to do some color 12x18" enlargements. All this has gotten me

wondering...

 

My previous wide-angle solution was a 17-35/2.8L lens on an Elan

IIE. It served me well in Yellowstone last summer. I got a slide of

the Beehive Geyser erupting that would not have been possible on my

Digital Rebel. But of course, I have still not scanned, nor enlarged

it, so I have not enjoyed the shot on my wall yet, and only

projected it a couple of times.

 

I carried both bodies then. But sometimes I want to go light.

Somewhere in my family's future is probably a trip to Washington,

DC. Post 9/11, a photographer cannot carry two cameras or a tripod

without being hassled. So that brings me to my question...

 

Should I sell my f/2.8 L zoom for a slower, yet expensive consumer

zoom? The used value of the L zoom is about the same as the new

price of the 10-22mm. The range, considering the crop factor, is

almost identical. I sometimes take home interiors, where I like to

balance ambient light with electronic flash using a fast aperture.

Outdoors, I would stop a wide angle down to f/8 or so. I really do

not care about the relative build quality; they are both fine for my

needs. I do not expect to buy a full-frame or 1.3x crop DSLR in the

next 3-4 years, if ever. (BTW, will my EW-83CII hood fit on the 10-

22?)

 

I am most interested in optical quality: sharpness, contrast,

vignetting, distortion, etc. Next comes minimum aperture. Third, I

like the 10-22's closer focusing ability--I like wide angle

closeups. But, I am willing to continue with a film-based wide angle

solution if the 17-35L zoom is still better optically. My other

shorter lenses are 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 primes and a 28-135 IS zoom.

The gap between 22mm and 28mm for slow zooms does not bother me much

on a 1.6x crop camera(eq. 35mm vs. 45mm), but I may someday switch

to the 24/2.8 or 28/1.8 lens instead of the 28/2.8 lens (I wish

Sigma's 20 & 24/1.8 lenses were physically smaller!)

 

So, has anyone made this switch? If so what do you think of the

optical quality between the two lenses? I know the 17-35 was not

regarded as being as sharp as the 16-35. Some people have reported

in photo.net (I've read all the 10-22 threads) that the 10-22 is

just as sharp as the 16-35. I find that very hard to believe. But

has anybody compared the 10-22 on 1.6x cameras vs. the 17-35L on

film cameras? Thanks.

[joe_r1]

I have a 20D and an EOS 3. I have owned the 17-35/2.8L, and 16-35/2.8L. I find the 10-22mm on the 20D to be an excellent performer when stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8. I sold my 16-35/2.8L after using the 10-22mm for awhile, because I don't shoot much film anymore, and the performance of the 10-22mm on digital is great. I also own the 24-70/2.8L which is my most used lens.

[eos 10 fan]

Some comments here might be helpful:<br>

<a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/24mm/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/24mm/index.htm</a><p>--

[byronlawrence]

set aside a jar and put a label on it that says (canon 1ds mark II charity fund) and when ever friends come over or when you have extra money, put money in it. when you have the money get that. You probably get good results with what you have so just be patient. other wise make the switch.

[kevin_harper]

Why bother answer when you have nothing to say?

[terry_smith2]

If you are keeping the film camera, then also keep the 17-35. There are other lenses from Tamron and Sigma that give similar coverage to the Canon 10-22 but they sell for rahter less than the Canon version. If money is a problem at the moment, consider one of these.

[bellavance]

I use the 10-22/3.5-4.5 with my EOS 20D and I'm extremely satisfied, even compared with my L series lenses.

 

Here's a picture made at Canyon de Chelly, AZ with this lens at 10mm, wide open at f/3.5

 

Pierre<div></div>

[eclectic image]

The Sigma and Tamron lenses are of course cheaper than the Canon solution but are they as good. I am about to invest in a super wide angle and wondered if they are "as good".

 

Sorry to hijack slightly but it may also provide some answers for the original poster.

 

Regards

 

Mark

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p>I currently have the 17-40/4 and the 10-22/3.5-4.5, and I've compared results of the former on film vs. the latter on digital, both wide open. The 17-40 has better sharpness and less chromatic aberration than the 10-22. But it is a pretty close call to make. The 17-40 also produces higher contrast images, and this can be a more apparent difference between the lenses on some subjects.

 

<p>I used to use a 16-35, but this was many months prior to getting the 10-22. My impression is the 10-22 (on digital) is comparable in sharpness to the 16-35 (on film), except at the extreme corners where the 16-35 has an edge. I'd also say the 10-22 is less prone to flare than the 16-35. However, the 16-35 delivers more contrast than the 10-22.

 

<p>Sorry I don't have any first-hand experience with the 17-35 to offer, but I hope the above is helpful.

 

<p>I don't know about the EW-83CII hood; I'm using an EW-83E on mine. Assuming the bayonet of the EW-83CII is the same as the one on the EW-83E, it should work fine with the 10-22.

[david_lau3]

If you go digital on 1.6X sensor and want real wide angle wider than 28mm, then the 10-22 is the best choice so far.

 

Directly comparing 17-35 with 10-22 is meaningless as you are comparing a 16-35mm vs a 28-56mm zoom.

[carl_weller]

Larry, you seem to have answered your own question:

 

"I am most interested in optical quality: sharpness, contrast, vignetting, distortion, etc".

 

The 17-35 L, note the great big capital L, is a much better lense than the 10-22. People

just pretend to like the 10-22 'cause its the only game in town for a canon extreme wide

angle on a 1.6 DSLR. Really its overpriced and over-hyped.

 

If optical quality is your number one priority then the elan with your L lense will not be

beaten by a Drebel with a 10-22, and probably not even by a 20D with 10-22.

 

Why not make use of that scanner of yours and keep shooting film for the wide angle

shots? I wouldn't base my move over to digital only on a bit of hassle from airport goons.

 

I'd think more about gettin' something good at the tele end if I were you, say a 70-200

[any of the 3 Ls would be fine]. Barring a lottery win, I'll make the switch when I have all

the glass I need.

 

You've got your Drebel to play with in the meantime. Digital is only going to get better and

cheaper. A reasonably priced FF DSLR may only be a couple of years off if Nikon ever gets

its sh%t together and provides some useful competition to Canon. Look how the D70 made

them sit up and take notice.

 

regards,

[bellavance]

The 17-35/2.8L is not a great lens at all. In fact, it was quickly replaced by the 16-35/2.8L, which is much better, but not quite as good as the 17-40/4L.

 

The 10-22/3.5-4.5 is not an L series lens, but performs admirably on my 20D, along with my 17-40/4L and 24-70/2.8L lenses.

 

Pierre

[chiswick_john]

" 16-35/2.8L, which is much better, but not quite as good as the 17-40/4L. " - on what basis do you state this fact?

[m_keiser]

Check out the MTF charts on these lenses. You can find the 10-22's chart on Canon Japan at

 

http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s10_22_f35_45.html

Surprisingly the 10-22's chart is significantly better than the 16-35's. Granted the 16-35 covers a larger circle so it can probably resolve more lp's across the entire frame. But with the resolution of todays digitals I don't think you will notice a difference in sharpness of the lenses only the difference in film vs. digital. Also the 10-22 has a good amount more contrast, if it wasn't an ef-s mount I think it would certainly be an "L" lens.

 

If the 10-22 performs this well against the 16-35 it should do even better against the older 17-35.

 

Also one point rarely mentioned is even though the two lenses have almost identical angle of views, the 10mm will have a lot deeper depth of field than the 16mm. I consider this a pretty big advantage as you usually don't really want or need the out of focus background with a superwide angle lens.

 

I have used the 10-22mm for some time and couldn't be happier with it. If you could afford a full frame DSLR it would be worth reconsidering. Otherwise have no doubt you will be very happy with this lens.

 

Hope I have been helpful.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> FWIW, my 17-35/2.8 was a rather poor performer and I quickly sold it. Perhaps it was a bad copy but I routinely hear and see that the 17-40/4 and 16-35/2.8 are a lot better. </p>

<p> If I had 20D I'd surely get the 10-22 for it as it seems to be the best offer to the 1.6 EOS system in this range. Nevertheless, the MTF curves of the <a href="http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3301&navigator=6">Sigma 10-20</a> looked promising but they were removed from Sigma's site. Too good to be true? I wonder. <b></b> </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>