10-22 vs 17-40

[David_Cavan]

<p>We don't have th 17-40, but we use our 10-22 a lot on our Rebel XTI and 50D; and we pick up the range with a 24-105 so we have fairly good coverage. The 17-40 is very wide angle, and takes some getting used to but for landscapes, interiors and those fun close-up shots of items it is great, and it just takes in a lot of light so can be used in very low light conditions. We like it a lot.</p>

[simon_t1]

<p>I've decided thanks to all, 10-22 next week.<br>

Thanks again,<br>

Simon.</p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>One last comparison... Compare the Arizona pool shot above with this Miami pool shot at the Thunderbird Hotel. The Arizona shot was at 10 mm. You can get a sense of the huge scope of real estate captured in that shot, and in fact, the Arizona pool is so enormous that it takes 15 minutes to walk it's perimeter.</p>

<p>The Miami pool shot here was also taken with a 40D, but it had the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens attached, and set to 17 mm. This is a normal sized pool that you can walk around in about two minutes. That might help parse the difference in area captured by the two lenses. The Miami shot would contain exactly the same image elements if a 17-40L lens was mounted, and zoomed to the wide limit. I am also of the opinion that the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a far better lens than the 17-40L if that is the range you are looking to provide for a crop camera, which is why I made the comment earlier about restricting the use of my 17-40 to FF digital and film bodies. That said, the 17-40 is a very fine lens, but it isn't the best choice for a crop camera in most instances. These shots might best be viewed if you save them to your PC, and browse them outside of the forum, as they are presented with funky aspect compression in the forum itself at times.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2517139759_47805ccb7c_b.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>Simon T,<br />When you make the jump to using seriously wide angle lenses, plan on buying a focusing screen for your 40D that has the grid scale etched in place. It will REALLY pay for itself in short order, as it will discipline you to watch your lines, and not ruin great shots by holding the camera a bit cocked this way or that. They are pretty cheap, and easy to pop into place. I use them on all of my cameras as standard screens.</p>

<p>Trust me on this, and I'm sure that others will agree. Keeping vertical lines vertical, and horizontal lines horizontal is the toughest part of the learning curve when shooting WIDE. Especially interiors with lots of prominent lines that need some sort of order to look right. Having a grid in your viewfinder makes it painlessly easy to keep the 3D level of your camera just right for a shot without sweating the moment at all....</p>

<p>Happy shooting!</p>

[Alex]

<p>Simon I have the 10-22 mm and as much as I don't use it as often as most other lenses I have every time I use it I'm glad I have it and I would buy it again in a heart beat if something happens to the one I have.<br>

I think the build is great, I wish it wuold be a bit faster but nothing I loose sleep over. I find the colors to be nice and punchy, good contrast and I get very sharp images with it.<br>

If you already own a 24-105 then the 17-40mm (my opinion) is kind of a waste since you'll be spending a good amount of $$$ to go from you existing 24mm down 7mm to a 17mm the 10-22 mm will give you a whole lot more range which to me would be a better use of your money.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">You chose well. Apart from excellent IQ, it's a much better partner to the 24-105 due to lack of overlap and offering a much wider PoV, should you ever want/need it.<br>

 

<p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

</p>

</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>For me the decission is on the focal length. If you want a equal POV as 16-35 get the 10-22 I don't think IQ is an issue. If you want want the happy with 27 - 64mm then the 17-40 is a super lens. But I would go for the 10-22 its and excellent lens.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>Just to mix things up a bit, I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, and I think it's a great lens on my 7D. It's about $100 cheaper than the 10-22mm with f/3.5 over the entire focal range. Sure, you're losing 2mm, but are you really going to miss that tiny bit of range?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The 17-40 is very wide angle, and takes some getting used to but for landscapes, interiors and those fun close-up shots of items it is great, and it just takes in a lot of light so can be used in very low light conditions."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not "very wide angle" on a cropped sensor camera. It covers moderately wide at 17mm to <em>slightly telephoto</em> at 40mm on crop. (17mm of 1.6x crop is equivalent in angle-of-view terms to about 28mm on 35mm SLR or full frame DSLR. That is not particularly wide.)</p>

<p>"Takes in a lot of light so can be used in very low light conditions?" No. It takes in no more light than any other f/4 lens. It is not a particularly great low light lens on a crop sensor body, and there are distinctly better options for this purpose. While center sharpness is fine, it can be noticeably soft in the corners wide open at f/4.</p>

<p>For low light wide (but not ultra wide) angle shooting on a cropped sensor camera the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a much better option. Same wide angle FL, f/2.8 instead of f/4, less corner softness at f/4 and probably even at f/2.8, IS extends low light ability in situations in which camera stability is the limiting factor.</p>

<p>I used to use the 17-40 on a cropped sensor camera and I currently use in on FF cameras, where I rely on it a lot for stopped down landscape and similar ultra-wide angle photographs. If I had a cropped sensor camera, however, the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS would be my first choice to cover this range - and the 16-35 f/2.8 L and the 17-40 f/4 L would be lower on my list.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[w_t1]

<p>I wish Canon would make a fixed 10mm in aps-c, or fixed 17mm for that matter...I do like my 17-40 though on film and FF.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>I wish Canon would make a fixed 10mm in aps-c, or fixed 17mm for that matter...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>why, why not. I rarely use any FL other than 17mm on the 17-40 (film and full frame). In the FD system which I still use, Canon made a fixed 17mm which is sweet. I"m one of the few that still prefers primes, I even like the 20 fixed. One focal length, simple. I use my feet.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>G Dan - you quoted my post, and I went back and looked at it and did a head-slap. I had meant to say "The <strong><em>10-22</em></strong> is very wide angle, and takes some getting used to but for landscapes, interiors and those fun close-up shots of items it is great, and it just takes in a lot of light so can be used in very low light conditions. We like it a lot." It is labelled at 3:04am, which might explain two things 1)I need to get a life, and 2)I shouldn't try to be specific about anything at that hour, although is was only 12:04am on the pacific coast, I guess. Having said that, the 10-22 is quite wide, in my opinion and is quite fast. And you may be right about the 17-40, which I don't own, as mentioned in my post.<br>

My bad.</p>

[tom_spalding1]

<p>I have both the 17-55 f2.8 and the 10-22 for use on my Rebel XTI and now 7D. For interiors, the 10-22 is vastly superior; 17mm just isn't wide enough. Either lens is OK for landscapes. The 17-55 is better for a walk around lens. Like Alex E., I don't use the 10-22 all that often, but I wouldn't think of selling it. It's just too much fun!</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>why, why not. I rarely use any FL other than 17mm on the 17-40 (film and full frame). In the FD system which I still use, Canon made a fixed 17mm which is sweet. I"m one of the few that still prefers primes, I even like the 20 fixed. One focal length, simple. I use my feet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? Because Canon has to invest a lot of money in R&D, manufacturing, marketing etc. They will do that only if they are sure there are a lot of people like you.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>