Canon 40d with ef 10-22 OR 5d with 17-40

[vm1]

Hi,

Not takig into account the camera specs and features, which is a better

combination for taking wide angle shots, mostly landscapes , handheld with 80-

20% day/night shots.

 

I'm only considering the IQ with these combo, mostly viewed on my laptop or 6*4"

prints.

I'm also ignoring the point that 10-22 is a lil wider at 10mm on 1.6 body of 40d,

but 17-40 has addiional 5mm on the tele end

16-35 is too expensive for comparison at this point.

 

Thanks

Vin

[john_bellenis]

if you are viewing only on a laptop or 6x4 prints IQ is not an issue and any IQ

differences between these two set ups are essentially irrelevant.

 

Go with the least expensive set up, or look into P&S cameras that have the

equivalent field of view that you require. I am not being facetious when I say that -

for what you want 5MP is more than enough resolution, and the feature sets of many

P&S cameras are pretty impressive. Why pay more than needed for your stated

use?

[bobatkins]

At 4x6 or on a monitor, just get the cheaper package. There will be do discernable difference. Even at 8x10 I doubt you could tell them apart.

 

There are no P&S cameras that wide as far as I know.

 

You could go for a Digital Rebel of some sort and the Sigma 10-22 and save even more money - and you still won't see a difference at those scales.

[steve torelli]

A landscape at 4X6 isn't much more than a postcard. But, if that's your plan, I agree that your choice of camera and lens isn't very critical. The cheapest route would be a P&S, what with it's DOF, but I doubt you'll find one that goes that wide.

[ken munn]

You'll have guessed that those of us who hang stuff on walls think your requirements are a

little elementary.

 

But on the assumption that you too might become a wall hanger one day, I'd say the 5D and

the 17-40 were the better bet. Stuff that the 40D does well, like high frame rate and

telephoto-multiplication don't matter for landscapes, whereas IQ does (when you get to wall

hanging) and the 5D/17-40 seems to win that contest.

[marknagel]

If you were ever going to print large, I did a comparison of my 16-35L on my 5D vs. 10-22 on my 20D and the 16-35L was noticeably sharper. The 17-40L is supposed to be even sharper than the 16-35L.

 

m

[burger]

I can recomend the 10-22mm on the 40D. I enjoy mine and there is almost no barrel distortion wide open. If you plan on upgrading to a full frame later, the L lenses would be a better choice.

[paul_martin4]

I started with a 30D and a Tokina 12-24, and while it was a good set up, my 5D and 17-

40 are a much better team. Once you get some shots you really like, 4x6 goes out the

window pretty fast.<div></div>

[._._z]

"Hi, Not takig into account the camera specs and features"

 

Or cost. The 40D combo would cost you $1,650, the 5D combo about $1,000 more. That makes it a ridiculous comparison.

[dariusz calkowski]

The 5D combo hands down. The only area where 40D wins is lesser barrel distortion at the wide end.

But do you really need such an equipment to your tasks?

I doubt, but soon tasks may change...

[correct_exposure]

Go with the 5D combo. The 40D really stresses lenses past f/8. Next, the 17-40 is faster and has better IQ. The 5D has a 3-d look on printed images. It really is a great landscape camera.

[._._z]

If you've got the money to spend, get a 5D. Get two. Get a 1ds3. But comparing a $1650 combo to a $2650 combo is still silly.