Going on vacation and need lens recommendation

[alexander_c1]

There have been multiple threads on this and I feel as I should apologize for the redundancy.

 

I WANT to get a super wide lens because I do a lot of indoor photography with not a lot of room to back out and I am

also into landspace and architectural photography.

 

I will be going on vacation next week and need to hear what you guys think about the following options. It's got to be

a Canon lens as I am not pro third party.

 

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 17-40mm f/4L

Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

 

They are $10 dollars in difference (which is nothing) and have 7mm in focal lenght difference. However, one is an L

lens. I own the 70-200 L (non IS) and the picture quaility on this lens is PHENOMENAL. I also have a 28-105 which

isn't wide enough which is why I want a wide lens.

 

Do I go for the L because of the picture quality and lose out on those extra 7mm?

 

Please share your thoughts.

 

Thanks.

[g dan mitchell]

I'd throw the EFS17-55 f/2.8 IS into the mix here. In my view it offers more than the 17-40 (which I own and use on FF and

like a great deal) in almost every important way when it comes to a cropped sensor lens.

 

If you are convinced that you need the ultra wide angle range right away then your obvious choice is the 10-22.

[rainer_t]

What camera body do you use?

[alexander_c1]

I use a 40D.

[alexander_c1]

Dan, the IS lens is out of my budget. But it sure sounds nice.

[danield]

"They are $10 dollars in difference (which is nothing) and have 7mm in focal length difference."

 

Those 7mm may not sound like much, but at the wide end 7mm makes a HUGE difference. At 10mm your field of view is almost twice as wide than at 17mm.

 

Based on your requirement for shooting indoors and in tight spaces I'd say the 10-22 is the answer, no doubt about it. It's very good optically, about as good as it gets.

[JDMvW]

The only "super wide" you mention; and your ONLY choice, if you must have Canon, is the EF-S 10-20mm.

 

17mm is only a moderate wide angle on your 40D.

 

If you want super wide and L glass, you need to buy a 5D or other "full-frame" body plus a 16mm- or 17mm- or so L

lens.

[gregf]

It ,ay be price, but for architecture, noting beets the 24 TS-E. Lensrentals.com has a ggod price to rent one. It's certainly not my staple lens, but it gets the shots that no othere cans can.

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-ts-e-24mm-f3.5-l/for-canon

[jimstrutz]

You said, "I WANT to get a super wide lens..."

 

24mm isn't wide at all on a 40D, although a tilt-shift lens can be great for architecture. And as JDM said, "17mm is only a moderate wide angle on your 40D." If you want a super wide Canon lens for a 40D it has to be a EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. There are no other choices.

 

If you add in third party lenses there are more choices, but they all start at 12mm or less.

[nhut-nguyen]

10-22 = 16-35 on the 40D, and 17-40 = 27-64. 27 is wide, 16 is ultra-wide. Right now the 10-22 seems like the pefect choice.

[alexander_c1]

thanks everyone. looks like the 10-22 it is.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 17-40 is labelled as a superwide because it's designed for use on full-frame (digital or film) bodies, and on a full-frame body, it is indeed superwide. The 10-22 offers a similar range of fields of view (on a 1.6-crop body, which is the only type of body with which it's compatible) to what the 17-40 offers on a full-frame body; the 10-22 is equivalent to what a 16-35 is on full-frame.</p>

 

<p>Don't worry about the picture quality of the 10-22 since it's not an L. It's pretty much up there with the L ultrawides in image quality; if you look up the specs and the block diagrams, you'll find that its design is quite similar to those of the 17-40/4L and 16-35/2.8L (at least, the original 16-35; I'm not sure how different the 16-35 II is), and that it uses similar types of exotic glasses as those two. It's not up there with the L lenses for build quality (it's high-end consumer in this regard, comparable to the better of the two 28-105s) or weather sealing (it has none, but your body has very little, either, so you'd be wise not to go shooting in the rain), but while those are important to some people, for the vast majority of us non-professionals they're nice-to-have features, not need-to-have features.</p>

[alan_myers]

Hi Alexander,

 

You said "super wide".

 

Any 17mm is not super wide on a 40D. It's only marginally wide.

 

That leaves the Canon 10-22 your only choice, unless you consider third party lenses, which you appear pretty resistant to.

 

Too bad, since the Tokina 12-24 and 11-16 are built a whole lot more like an L-Series than the Canon 10-22 is, cost less than the Canon, give equal image quality, and even come with the matching lens hoods, which is an added cost for the Canon 10-22.

 

Oh well.

 

I agree, the 24 TS-E is not the lens you want. Besides not being at all wide on a 40D, it's a brick to carry along on a vacation! You'll know it's in your camera bag, from your aching shoulder.