New insight needed EF 17-40 L or EFS 10-22

[ben_quinn1]

I need a wide zoom to compliment my 24-70 F/2.8 L, 70-200 F/4 L, 85 F/1.8 and

50 F/1.4. I have a 40D. I need to make the decision this weekend to take a on a

trip to Ireland. Should I go for the 10-22 or the 17-40? This has been asked

before but I wondered if there are any out there with actual experience of the two

lenses.

 

The problem I have with the 10-22 is the build quality vs the 17-40 as well as the

fact that the 17-40 would look great with my 24-70. However the extra 7mm of the

10-22 makes it a real ultra-wide on my camera. I hope to go FF sometime but

could be many years in the future.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Go wide - there's no substitute for 10 mm.

[ken munn]

The two simply aren't comparable. The 10-22 finishes only a little beyond the point where the

17-40 starts. If you are an ultra wide angle fan, it has to be the 10-22 (or Sigma's terrific 10-

20).

 

The 17-40 is, no doubt, a splendid collection of pieces of glass, but on a crop-box it's only the

equivalent of a rather pedestrian 28mm starting point.

[ben_quinn1]

They are not strictly identical lens types however they both offer soemthing wider than I have at the moment and if I can't bring myself to buy the 10-22 I have no choice but to go for the 17-40 as I don't want a third party lens. So for me it comes down to a choice between the 2.

[tridakfoto]

Canon's 10-22!

 

I also have the 40D as well as an XTi and the 10-22mm is always mounted on the XTi. I had the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8IS prior to this lens and did not find it wide enough for my landscape, travel and architecture needs. The 10-22 is perfect and sure it is not built as well as the 24-70 L lens but it is not that bad and the IQ should be what matters. The 10-22mm delivers here.

 

I usually carry my 10-22mm, 50mm or 85mm prime as well as the 70-200mm f/4L when I travel and it suits my needs quite well. Everyone has specific needs for their type of shooting but if you are going on a trip and feel you may need a wide lens for Ireland's landscapes then I'd definitely get the 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 over the 17-40L

 

Best of luck!

[photo_dark]

Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Sigma 10-22 or canon 10-22 if you value the extreme wide angle.

 

17-40 if you don't need the ultra-wide, and prefer not to have to switch lenses as often.

 

I have 17-40 / 24-70 combo and love it. That being said, I still wish I had something at the 10mm end of things.

[obakesan]

I've just bought the Tokina AT-X AF DX 12-24mm and I'm happy with the width. When using 35mm I've prefered the 24mm AoV so the 12 is nice for me.

 

but

 

packing more scene into my APS sensor is counter productive, I've found that for landscape I'm better off turning the camera sideways and taking 3 images at 24mm and stitching.

 

Sure there are times when you can only take one image (people), in these times I just can't see that a cheaper lens like the Tokina is substantially worse. For my money when I want a detailed image I prefer to use the less wide option and stitching ... there's only so much information you can pack into 8 or 12 mega pixels

[bill_morrow1]

Have both. Really like the 10-22 on the 40D better than the 17-40, which

does get used obviously on the 5D. I personally think you would not be

unhappy with the 10-22/40D combo

[yakim_peled1]

I had the 17-40 and replaced it for the 10-22 as it wasn't wide enough.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[brianurbano]

if you plan to go full frame then you cant use the 10-22mm ef-s

 

i agree with everyone that it isnt a fair comparison but if i were to choose i would pick the 17-40mm, i use 1dm2 and 5d so the ef-s lens is not a choice for me.

[ronald_biggar]

Don't understand your problem. Your 24-70 covers half of the 17-40 zoom range. The 10-22 matches very well with your 24-70.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Do you need a wide-to-normal zoom, or an ultrawide-to-wide zoom? These two lenses only compete with one another if you're considering putting one of them on a full-frame body and the other on a 1.6-crop body.</p>

 

<p>Don't worry about the 10-22 not being an L. Optically, it's up there. Build quality and lack of weather sealing are just like Canon's other high-end consumer-grade lenses, which many of us have used with no problems. I've had a few Canon high-end consumer zooms and a few L zooms, and I would have no hesitation to buy either one based on build quality - either one is perfectly adequate for my needs. I'd choose based on other factors (speed, focal lengths, optical quality, etc.).</p>

[scott_hamming]

I looked into this option myself several months back (have an XTi), and decided to go with the 17-40. I'm with you so far as staying with Canon brand, as the 3 other off brand lenses I've purchased will not work with any of my current eqpt. Even my older EF glass will still work with the XTi. The main reason I went to the 17-40, though is moving to FF sensor not too far down the road. I'm tired of buying glass which won't transition when I do.

[ben_quinn1]

Brian - thanks for the 'new insight' by pointing out EFS lenses don't work on FF bodies.

[gregcoad]

Why not the 16-35 f/2.8L? Better than both lenses. You will probably be going FF sooner than you think and that 10-22 would be pretty much useless to you then.

[robin_sibson1]

I have both of these lenses, and shoot both FF (5D) and 1.6-factor (40D). My first DSLR was a 20D and at that point I used the 17~40 (the UWA from my film kit) as my standard zoom. And, on 1.6-factor, that's what it is - medium-wide to a bit longer than standard. IQ is excellent, but its zoom range is pretty limited and it has no IS. If I now wanted a standard zoom for the 40D (mainly used with long lenses) I would unhesitatingly buy the 17~55/2.8IS. If you are already using a 24~70 as your standard zoom, then in my view the 17~40 will give you poor value for what you wil be spending. Of course, on FF it's a different matter altogether. My 5D walk-around kit is 17~40, 24~105IS, 70~200/4IS, an outstanding combination.

 

As for the 10~22, that's a first-class lens, and 17~40 on FF versus 10~22 on a 40D is a very close-run thing. Although it's not built to L-series standards, it's a perfectly well-constructed lens. Like the 17~40, the front element moves a small amount during zooming, but entirely within the fixed barrel length, so it's not at all vulnerable. The 10~22 is the only Canon UWA option for the 1.6-factor bodies, and teams quite well with a 24~XX zoom (in my case the 24~105) for general use.

[peter_rowe]

Those are some mighty fine lenses you have there. Well, I'm from Ireland and I have the Canon 10-22mm. I also have a 17-85mm and the 70-200mm. The 10-22mm is certainly the best match for the 40D (crop) but if I read between the lines I think you are thinking full frame and you are going the direction of "L" lenses, this will eliminate the EF-S 10-22mm. With this logic in mind the 17-40mm would be a much better solution for you. My 17-85mm is very useful on travel and 17mm+ is really all the need for 80%+ of shots. The 10-22mm is a very specialist lens - it needs certain "technique" to get good composition and I find I can't leave it on the camera as a walk-around like I can the 17-85mm. So, I'd say that if you want that UWA look then the only one way to get it on a 1.6x crop is with the 10-22mm but if you are thinking full-frame, or you want to head to the "L" direction of build quality and so on then go with the 17-40mm.

 

Good luck in your trip to Ireland!

[ben_quinn1]

I'm going to rent one for the 4 days I'm there and then put the money towards trading

my 40d in for a 5d so I don't have this constant conundrum with lenses. The 10-22

looks pretty good but at the end of the day I can't bring myself to spend >$700 on it.

[dogbert]

Get the 10-22. The build quality is fine. I have the 24-105 f4L and sure the build is nicer, but there is nothing lacking in the 10-22 build that comprimises its usefulness.