EF 17-40mm f/4L or EF-S 10-22 on a 30d for Landscape

[tonywoody]

It?s my 40th soon and I find myself stuck with the choice between EF 17-40mm

f/4L or EF-S 10-22 on a 30d for Landscape. I love the idea of owning an ?L?

but I will loose out on the wide angle, so should I go for the 10-22. But

then If I decide to get a 5d later on in life ?that?s if I ever become any

good at photography of course? then the 10-22 EF-S will not work on a full

frame body?

 

I would be truly greatful for any feedback

[peter_daalder]

The EF 17-40mm f4.0 L has been my lens of choice for shooting landscapes since October 2003. It has peformed very well on my old 300D, my 20D and is now mounted on my 5D for much of the time.<br>I also own the EF-S 10-22mm and <i>it</i> is now mounted on my 20D most of the time. If you love to shoot wide angle, you should get the latter for your 30D.

[colin carron]

Tony, I used the 10-22 on my 300D and now use the 17-40 on my 5D. In terms of image and build quality these lenses are about the same. My 10-22 flared less than my 17-40 does. If you want ultra wide shots the 10-22 is the one to choose. If you later buy a full frame camera you can sell the 10-22 on ebay as I did without losing much ,

[damian_tinsley]

Get the 10-22 unless you forsee an upgrade to a 5D in the near future. Or get the 5D as a 40th present and sell the 30D to fund a 17-40! Solves all problems and gets you a fantastic camera into the bargain.

 

Cheers

 

Damian

[sheryl_bury_michals]

Tony,

 

I got my 17-40 L last December, and have not regretted my purchase. I did consider the 10-22, but I like that I can use the 17-40 on a film body if I choose to - something you can't do with the 10-22 (which is strictly digital).

 

For landscape shots, I've been very happy with the results from the 17-40, plus it's great for indoors for group shots for social event pictures I take sometimes.

 

Sheryl

[shadowcatcher]

10-22mm, when you upgrade to a full frame camera sell it (they hold their price amazingly well) and get the 17-40L which I have. Difference in performance, I haven't noticed?

 

Hope it helps,

 

Kev

[robin_sibson1]

17mm isn't particularly wide on a 1.6-factor camera, 16mm is only marginally wider, and the EF14/2.8L is (a) apparently not all that good, (b) a clumsy way to get to 14mm on a 1.6-factor body. and © very very expensive. So within the Canon range your only real choice for a lens significantly wider than 17mm on 1.6-factor is the 10~22. Fortunately it is a very good lens. If, on the other hand, 17mm is wide enough for you, then the EF-S 17~55/2.8IS has a number of advantages over the EF 17~40/4L. Both of these high-end EF-S lenses should be easy to sell if one day you move to FF.

[david_wu6]

10-22, particularly if your other lenses can cover 24 and longer. As mentioned already, 17 may not wide enough on a 30D in some cases.

 

However, if your lens is something like 50mm or 70-200, then 17-40 is a better choice.

[gdanmitchell]

I chose a 17-40 for my landscape work with a crop sensor body, partly because it

complemented by 24-105 well and partly because it was my plan to move to a 5D before

too long. (I did get the 5D and the 17-40 is a wonderfully useful landscape lens on that

camera.)

 

I did sometimes feel that I could have used wider than 17mm on the crop body. If I had

planned to stick with crop I'm pretty certain I would have bought a 10-22 before long.

 

Choices, choices...

 

Dan

[lester_wareham]

I have both. The 17-40 is sharper in its range although the 10-22 is good also.

 

You can probably do much landscape work on a crop camera with a 17-40.

 

The 10-22 essential fills on a crop camera the same role as the 17-40 of full frame.

 

Personally I would not be without ultra wide, but I rarely use ultra wide for pure landscape, more for environmental shots of flowers and strong wide angle shots plus architecture.

[tonywoody]

Thank you all very much for your comments. I have decided to go for the 17-40 as my other Canon lenses are EF, so when I eventually get a full frame the lenses will work. Although I will loose out initially with the field of view it will eventually pay off as an L series on a full frame is about as good as it gets.

 

Thank you all once again

[pepe_martinez]

Dear Tony

I've got both the 17-40mm f/4L canon lense and the 10-20mm sigma lense. For me, it's no brainer at all since both lenses DO NOT overlap. Each of the lenses produces a different perspective, so the questions are:

1. which perspective I like most for landscapes

2. if you're planning to upgrade to a ff sensor in the near future.

 

My 17-40 is my walkaround lense and I basically mount the 10-20 when I want landscapes to show that lovely perspective you can only get when you go wide.

 

Your dilema is ours as well. We just want it all, and we can't wait!