Canon 17-40mm vs. 10-22mm Lens on 1.6x body

[dustin_garland]

<p>Ok, I know this has been talked about, I have obviously took the time to search the forums and google for other sites that may offer the info. However, I haven't found anything as particular as I want.<br>

I have a 40d, and plan in a year or 2 to upgrade to a full frame body or even sooner, depending on income.<br>

I have owned a 10-22mm efs lens and a 17-85mm efs lens. I however have recently sold both after acquiring a 35mm 1.4 L series lens. I ended up falling in love with it for sharpness, color, fastness, and the desire to practice more portrait work. I was always finding the distortion in the corners and even sharpness disappointing with the ef-s lenses. I know the 10-22 is pretty sharp and is even considered by most to be an L-series grade lens, just with out the red ring. I always found myself zooming in with the 10-22 more than using it wide open. So I got addicted to the idea of L-series lenses, and the idea of upgrading to full frame sooner or later, so I got anxious and sold of the ef-s lenses. 17-85mm didn't care about, pretty crap lens.<br>

I do a lot of landscapes at night, long exposures and such.<br>

I was starting to get let down by the distortion/blur towards the outer part of the frame with both ef-s lenses. I am wanting to step back from my scenes a little more too.<br>

with that said.<br>

I really want the 16-35mm lens however its expensive and since I do long exposures on a tripod, I dont really require the fastness of it. so i came across the 17-40mm usm L series lens. Its basically the same price as how much I sold the 10-22mm which was only 70 bucks less than it was new.<br>

So price is good.<br>

Now.<br>

I know I will lose the wideness of the 17-40mm on my 1.6x crop body. However, the 1.6x body will only use what all my teachers use to call "the sweet spot" of the lens. As in it will crop off the distorted edges of the image. (i know i can crop in photoshop too.)<br>

I want some images to compare the 10-22mm lens and the 17-40mm lens on a 1.6x body. I want to compare sharpness mostly, but also color, distortion, and how much loss of the wide angle will occur.<br>

I need images to compare myself, words will not tell me these things. I have read so many reviews and peoples ideas and experiences, but I want side by side image comparisons. of the two lenses on the same 1.6x crop body.<br>

However, that doesn't mean I don't want your opinions, I do. I would like to hear what you think i should do also.<br>

Thanks</p>

[dustin_garland]

<p>heres my website of images that i have done mostly with the ef-s lenses and what i will be doing with the 17-40 if i get it.<br>

www.dustingarland.com<br>

Also, I originally sold the two ef-s thinking I would get a 24-70mm for portraits, since it would be more like a 38-112mm on the 1.6x body, but I have a canon 100mm macro usm lens that does a good job for that now and is really sharp (i heard too sharp for portraits) but whatever since i am only recently beginning to explore the world of portraiture.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>If you're not going to shoot wide for now, the 17-40 is a wonderful lens but on your 40D it's equivalent to a 27-64mm lens. That's still wide enough to do a lot of things but not super wide. I've used the 17-40 on all of my crop bodies from the 10D up through my current 7D, and I love it on these cameras. Plus the 17-40 will be great on a FF body in the future. if you know it's going to be a couple of years before going full frame though, you might consider getting the EF-S 15-85 for your 40D. It's still pretty wide at 15mm but zooms to 85, and the quality is apparently superb. When the time comes to buy a FF body, the 15-85 should still be an easy lens to sell.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I'm on a work computer now, but when I get home I will post some samples. I had the 10-22mm and sold it for the 17-40mm b/c I didn't use it enough. They are both excellent lenses and I think after tweaking the color and sharpness in PS they would perform very similarly, other than FL. I don't think one would have the edge over the other, I think the PS adjustments would make a bigger difference than the actual lenses.</p>

[matthijs]

My 17-40 practically lives on my 50D and I love the results. (now and then it gets used on my FF...)

 

You seem aware of it's limitations (f4, short zoom range, no-IS) and strengths (color, contrast, build quality).

 

However I don't expect it to be visibly more sharp than the 10-22. (or 15-85 or 17-55/2.8 for that matter.

 

Kind regards, Matthijs.

[dustin_garland]

<p>what about barrel distortion/edge distortion. for instance the 10-22mm is pretty bad (as is most ultra wide lenses i know), especially since none of it gets cropped by the 1.6x body, however with the 17-40mm if it had any edge distortion wouldn't it basically be removed by the 1.6x crop. wouldn't that be better than say cropping it from the 10-22mm in photoshop? i may be over-thinking all of this.</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>here are a couple 10-22mm shots</p><div></div>

[nathangardner]

<p>another 10-22mm</p><div></div>

[nathangardner]

<p>and a couple with a 17-40mm</p><div></div>

[nathangardner]

<p>and another with the 17-40mm L. Now keep in mind these aren't side by side test shots under controlled conditions, so its hard to compare them, but you can get an idea of the photos each takes and compare distortion (which is pretty non existant on APS-C, even with the 10-22mm).</p><div></div>

[faysal]

<p>I was in a very similar boat as you, but my situation was slightly different. Because I am intending to get a FF in December (I'll wait if they announce the 5d3 of course!), I went ahead and got the 17-40mm. They will appear to act as two entirely different beasts on your crop sensor, so I'm not sure you want to even be looking at the 17-40 right now if you are considering the 10-22 in the first place.<br>

Although I'm not providing pictures, these words might help:<br>

For pictures, search the gallery for tags and also search places like flickr which has groups for pictures taken with certain lenses. They are very good lenses, but if you're sticking crop I'd really focus on the 10-22</p>

[mas-alaska]

<p>17-40 on 30D at 17 mm: http://www.mitchseaver.com/katmai/e3b314d6f<br>

17-40 on 30D at 40 mm: http://www.mitchseaver.com/katmai/e3cef84b1<br>

10-22 on 30D at 10 mm: <a href="http://www.mitchseaver.com/southeast2/e9ed3a6e">http://www.mitchseaver.com/southeast2/e9ed3a6e</a><br>

10-22 on 30D at 22 mm: http://www.mitchseaver.com/southeast1/e616859d<br>

<br /></p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I cannot comment on the 10-22 as I do not own this lens. I have seen good results with the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 on A nikon so I suggest you give this one a try. I have owned the 17-40 F4 but replaced it with the 16-35 f2.8 II. I shoot a 7D, 5DII, 1DIIN and film bodies and find the 16-35 II is the lens I use the most on the 7D. If I were you I would seriously consider the 17-40 f4 as it is a great buy. On an APS-C sensor i doubt that you will notice any performance difference between this lens and the 16-35 II (obviously there is an extra stop). The 17-40 is softer at the edges than the 16-35II but this is something that will probably only effect the image quality on full frame (possibly also on very large prints - above 20x30)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>You have a lot to think about - and I'd encourage you to go a bit slow for now.</p>

<p>First, is it a good idea to get a lens now for the full-frame body that you may get in a couple of years? If you are giving up utility with the camera you have now so that you'll have the right coverage with a camera that you may have eventually, you need to think carefully about this. To my way of thinking, if I needed the coverage of the 10-22 on my cropped sensor body, I would not want to give that up for two years so that I could have a lens that is right for the camera I don't have. Two years is a long time... and a lot of photographs. If you need the 10-22 coverage now, I'd get the 10-22 now. You can either keep it with your cropped sensor camera as part of your backup kit if and when you get a full frame body, or you could simply sell it at that time. You might lose a hundred or perhaps a couple hundred dollars, but think of that as $200 of value for making photographs over the next two years. Not such a bad investment.</p>

<p>I also sense a bit of gear obsession perhaps? This brings up a couple other thoughts.</p>

<p>First, an L lens is not always the best choice in every situation. Yes, L lenses are fine and I own my share. But there are also very fine non-L lenses that can be the best option in many cases. For example, if I were shooting a cropped sensor body I would much prefer the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS over the 17-40 (which I own and have used on full frame and cropped sensor bodies) and over the f/2.8 16-25. Here the L lens is not necessarily a better choice, and arguably the EFS is a better choice. The 10-22 probably falls into the same category. Again, if you need 10-22 coverage, it seems to me a very poor idea to get a lens with the wrong focal length range just because it is an L lens.</p>

<p>I wonder if something similar is going on with your mention of the 16-35. The EF 16-35mm f/2.8 is certainly a fine lens, especially if your main thing is hand held low light photography at ultra wide focal lengths on a full-frame body. However, you also specifically mentioned landscape photography. If by landscape photography you mean typically small aperture large DOF photography the 16-35 doesn't really provide any particular advantage over the 17-40.</p>

<p>It is important to become a bit dispassionate about lens choices. Rather that becoming too infatuated by the biggest, baddest, most expensive lens, think though your real needs in objective terms... and don't be afraid to make practical choices.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[dustin_garland]

<p>Hey, Thanks guys for all your advice.<br>

However, let me clear some things up.<br>

I agree with dan, i have reached a point of "obsession" with equipment, haha. But i have just been so dissatisfied with those lenses. The 10-22 just seemed way to distorted around the edges.<br>

I also don't think I really want or need that wide of a lens. I got the 10-22 when it first came out and just sold it a couple weeks ago. So i have been using it for a while. Yeah the wideness is extremely fun, but it gets to be boring after a while, especially with the distortion. I am really looking for something that doesn't have all that distortion/stretching along the edges.<br>

Again my website is www.dustingarland.com, and i would really like you guys to look at it. i have 2 series of night photography on there plus other stuff, and it will give you an idea of what i have shot with that 10-22 and the 17-85. it will also give you an idea of what i will be shooting or rather an idea of what lenses i could get by with using other than the 10-22 or 17-85.<br>

After looking at meta data i was zooming all the way in on the 10-22 and a little on the 17-85. I also want to take into consideration the idea that i have for several more series that I would like to step further away from the scene. Have the scene/landscape a little more distant, as little distortion as possible, and as sharp as i can get.you just have to see my work to get a feel for what im talking.<br>

So basically, i dont know if i really need that wideness, and even if i do, i think im tired of it.<br>

I also want to start doing lots of portrait work, not like head shots, but i am sure there will be some, but just people. if you go to my website you will realize, there is not one shot of a person. haha. i really want to tackle that beast.<br>

Theres one lens i haven't mentioned that I am leaning towards also. That is the 24-70mm 2.8 ii usm (or the 24-105mm). I have read how the 24-70mm is basically every wedding photographers best weapon or whatever. It just seems like a really good lens for a lot of situations. I am even thinking of getting rid of the 35mm lens and getting the 16-35 and the 24-70 (or 24-105 but i like the idea of the 2.8 on the 24-70mm more).<br>

So i just feel stuck, not knowing what to do. I have had the 17-85 and the 10-22, i just wasnt completely happy with them other than the fact that on the 10-22 its extremely wide, but that feeling reached a point of like, whoo, extra wide plus the edges of my picture are all stretched, yay. it just started to feel like a cheap gimmick like a fisheye almost.<br>

i guess i just need to go rent the lenses, but i live far from where i would rent them, and dont really want to waste money on it. it would be cheaper just to buy them and sell them when im done.<br>

either that or somebody point me to some pics of the exact same image that have been taken with the 10-22, 17-40, 16-35, and 24-70. i have found plenty of comparisons for these lenses but not all together.<br>

lens makers should do this and provide these examples...<br>

sorry if i make no sense right now, its late and i have been thinking way too much about this.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The "problem" with the 10-22 is that it is a very wide lens - by its nature there will be "distortion" "around the edges." If you want that wide of an angle of view, it comes with the territory. You'll get the same effect from the 17-40 or the 16-35 on a full frame body.</p>

[jim_h.2]

<p>I honestly dont have much experience with the 17-40 but i did by the 10-22 for the wide shots, and like you i have the 40d and i also picked up a 50d, but moving up to 7d and trading 50d off, I would like a wide body camera but the photos I normally take just does not require the investment ,now for me the the bit of wavy junk at the 10mm side of the 10-22 i use CS and take it out and its virtually impossible to tell they have been edited, i do mostly weddings some city scapes , and a lot of engagement shoots with cityscapes at night, i like the 10-22 and have had no problem with sharpness, of course lighting is challenge wiht the 10-22 so i use manual focus ,lock that in and shoot with two off shoe flashes and thing go very well, so i think you are like the rest of us , you want the excietment of something we dont have yet, and wont be happy to you get it, i mean that in the nicest way, I would suggest you might rent the big body camera first for like a week and then see how you feel beofre you sink at least 3 more grand in a new camera , I honestly love the 40d most of all my cameras, but lie anyone else i want mroe , with the two processors and the extra bit rate , it will come in handy for couple photos , so as always its all about what we want, with me i have to be practical and I am retired from the Corps and started eos for a hobby then went to school then realized i could have fun and make money to buy better lens and etc , so when you pop about 1500 shots per wedding you are lookig at replacing cameras a lot with my schedule so the big body camaeras area lot to replace, i might be off the subject , but then again you might have the same things going through your own mind, best of luck either way.</p>

[dustin_garland]

<p>you hit it right on jim.<br>

the full frame, the 2 different crop factors, the many different cameras, it all becomes basically a desire to gain that status of owning the most expensive when in reality unless your known around the world for your images and make lots of money, its probably the worst investment you can make spending 3-5 grand on a camera. i watched a teacher go through two 20d bodys in one school year when they first came out. they have become disposable.<br>

however. part of my education was examining photos up close and using basically all the different types of cameras out there. (supplied by the school) and when you do that, a lot, you begin to notice the differences extremely easy and right of the bat. from a 4x5 horseman, a mamiya with digital back, the first 5d, 20d, rebels, you get obsessed and disappointed with what you can only afford vs. what a school can supply you with to use. its sad. you become discouraged, or at least i have.<br>

if your a photographer you are a perfectionist. thats basically your job, turning something thats normal or everyday, into something that is as perfect and as close to your view or someone elses view as you can get it. otherwise your just somebody pointing and shooting with an expensive camera.<br>

anyways<br>

Yeah, i understand this isnt a "problem" and i understand that it will be distorted in all wide angle lenses. the "problem" is I am tired of that distortion and as stated i am unsure if i even need it. i am looking for advice and image comparison. so i can make a decision on if i would like or be ok with the loss of that wideness.<br>

sorry, kinda sounded rude. dont intend to, i just dont think i am explaining myself good enough i think i have confused people more than have explained my issue.<br>

i really think it would help if everyone go and check out my website, look at the first 2 series of images, and tell me if i could or could not replicate the same images/feel/or "style" with one of the other lenses. the website is simple and easy nothing flashy or special, you go there, you push play or you push the next button. the end. i am not trying to get you to drool over my photos and tell me how much you love them or hate them. theres no pop ups or ads, its pretty simple, yet i dont think anyone has done it yet.<br>

lets say i take a picture of a scene with the 10-22mm lens. then i take the same crop by backing away further from the scene with lets say a 24-70mm. what types of things would really be different. other than distortions. does the wide angle lens (10-22) do something else to an image other than the ability to fit more of a scene into an image at a closer distance from the scene than a 24-70.<br>

i would also like to note that imo i think i would rather use lets say the 24-70 and back further away from the subject, and use it on my 1.6x body, because it would crop off all the distortion, and i would get the same image. correct?<br>

basically i do not need to take some environmental portrait in a 10 foot by 10 foot room and include some guy, his book shelf, computer desk, and drumset all in one image and only have 4 feet distance from these subjects to take the picture. I will be using the lens outside, with tripod, in areas where i have the ability to move away from the image as much as possible if i need to.<br>

however, i know (or at least think) there is some kinda feeling that wide angle lenses create and i cant put my finger on it. unless i am imagining it and it is merely the ability to take that environmental portrait in a 10 by 10 foot room as i described before.</p>

<p>thanks again guys<br>

how do you put spaces in here so its easier to read?</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>how do you put spaces in here so its easier to read?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Double-space between paragraphs instead of single-space. (You should also be able to view your message before approving it after you click the "submit" button.)</p>

<p>Again, you have so many questions that go in so many directions that spending money on gear right now can be more or less a crap-shoot. You are trying to figure out what focal lengths you prefer, whether to shoot close or far, whether you want ultra-wide or long lenses, whether you'll shoot full-frame or crop.</p>

<p>As I wrote earlier, slow down.</p>

<p>Equipment is just equipment. Photography, at least in my opinion, is not about equipment. Yes, equipment is important, but getting a bunch of it and getting it all at once is not so important. In fact, <em>it can easily distract you from photography</em>.</p>

<p>As I read many of your questions - and they are important questions - I keep wanting to say "shoot more, learn, and then consider what equipment you need." Many beginning and intermediate photographers make the mistake of <em>starting</em> with the equipment decisions, thinking that these must be made before photography can happen. In many ways, the opposite is actually true. The more you shoot with the gear you have, the clearer your particular needs will become to you... and at that point you'll be able to make many of these decisions based on your own experience rather than asking others.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Dustin I have the 24-70 ( in addition to my 16-35 II and former ownership of the 17-40). I like this lens a lot but personally find that I use the 16-35 a lot more on my 7D. The wider end of the 24-70 is fine but I just don't seem to use the longer end much. The 24-70 is a good lens but not a great one - it (mine) suffers slightly from zoom creep and it is a big heavy beast with a huge lens hood. That said I prefer it to the 24-105 it replaced. I suspect you may be happier with the 17-40 than the 24-70</p>

[dustin_garland]

<p>Dan i understand all of that.</p>

<p>I think you all are forgetting that i already sold the lenses to get another lens, or 2 different ones. I also sold some old<br>

cameras.therefore its not like i am buying a bunch of equipment. i am trying to update and actually get rid of unused<br>

equipment. i have a prime 35mm f1.4 lens. its amazing, however not very versatile also the 100mm macro, very sharp,<br>

good back ground blur, but again not versatile unless i want to move closer and further away taking portraits and such.<br>

however i am fine with having to move around to get the shot with my personal work.</p>

<p>also. i have been shooting for 10 years now, 4 years of photography education of shooting all day everyday, mostly studio<br>

and my own work on the side. most of my experience has been with the 17-85, and 10-22, other than that the lenses i<br>

worked with before were pretty crap, and i never really took advantage of the lenses at school just the cameras and flash<br>

equipment in studio, because i was like every other beginning photographer, amazed by wide angles.</p>

<p>i didnt take any classes where i just shot scenes with different lenses and examined them and all their effects. we were<br>

given assignments that didnt really require that and i didnt take advantage of available lenses.</p>

<p>so basically i havent really got my hands on and worked with a telephoto zoom, such as those 24-70, which i know is a wide<br>

lens, but on my camera really wouldnt be. the 17-85 yeah is close, but it was seriously obviously flawed. when comparing<br>

some of the portraits i have shot with class mates, sharpness and distortion.</p>

<p>i was in the mind set for this whole time of not caring to make money with photography, however being out of college,<br>

starting family, and working a good but not a challenging job for a while now and not taking advantage of my education has<br>

turned me from that idea.</p>

<p>so in reality i dont have that many questions. i am simply wondering what real differences (as in feel) a photo of a scene<br>

taken with a wide angle zoom lens and a standard telephoto zoom lens taken from further away to get the same crop are. I<br>

know there is more edge distortion/stretching and fitting more into an image from shooting closer. the standard telephoto<br>

zoom will have less of that distortion and it will blur the back ground more i think. what other real difference though if any? i<br>

mean theres a huge difference in a fisheye and a wide angle, as in distortion, but what about a telephoto zoom and wide<br>

angle. is there more bulging in the center of the image on the wide angle?</p>

<p>the other issue i did have with those ef-s lenses was the problem with low light as well, because i was doing more natural<br>

light portrait type work with them, or at least trying.</p>

<p>i am obsessed yes with reading reviews and info about equipment and yes if i had lots of money i would have lots of<br>

equipment that doesnt get used most likely, however, like i said i sold those lenses before i posted this, which left me with<br>

no zoom lens, which i now find kind of annoying. i am not talking about buying 2 more lenses and having 4 lenses, i am<br>

talking about using the money i got from the 2 i sold, and trying to trade in or sell the other 2, and get possible 2 lenses that<br>

will cover me with my personal work, and portrait work, which will be in my studio, but mostly on location. which after<br>

discussing all of this and all the research i have done so far, the 24-70 may cover me in both, and having that one and the<br>

16-35mm or even the 17-55 ef-s might cover me for everything on my current 1.6x body.</p>

[dustin_garland]

<p>well sorry about that, it wont let me edit it, i dont know why it spaced it like that.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>OK, Dustin. Good luck you you!</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Dustin, I looked at your website and saw all your images. (Nice work, BTW -- very commercial feel to it, but nice.)</p>

<p>I can't determine whether you feel there is excessive "distortion" in the night photos or whether you are simply saying those are the types of photos you would like to take without distortion. I do see that most of those are fairly wide angle shots. Since you're agonizing over distortion, I'll offer the following less commonly understood perspectives that might help you to understand distortion and where it comes from:</p>

<p><strong>Distortion only occurs when there is an incongruance between how a picture is shot and how it is viewed.</strong> (Reread that, and take it to heart. It's critically important.)</p>

<p>If you take an extreme rectilinear wide angle shot with a rectilinear lens and view it extremely closely, such that the viewing angle from edge to edge is the same as when you shot it, the photograph will not appear distorted. When you view at a greater viewing distance, the distortions will begin to appear as stretching of the image in the margins. As a result, round objects (which you mostly don't photograph) will appear egg-shaped. A rectilinear lens will still keep all the lines straight.</p>

<p>A fisheye lens will give you something more akin to a polar graph (look the term up), in which the distance from the center is given roughly by the angle of an object off the lens axis. Straight lines that do not intersect the axis of the lens become bent. This is not unnatural. Sit in the middle of a sidewalk, and look one direction: The lines converge. Look the other direction: The lines in that direction converge too. That means if you view the entire sidewalk from one horizon to the opposite horizon, the lines must "bend." That's what a fisheye correctly represents. A rectilinear lens, on the other hand, does not show this bend. By bending lines we see bent, a fisheye keeps geometry intact and represents round objects as round no matter where they might appear in the frame. If your scene is simple enough (which it seems usually to be), and if you keep all straight lines running through the center of the frame, you can keep them straight AND eliminate distortion of shapes in the margins. Then you must crop your photo as needed.</p>

<p>Note that a fisheye always looks unnatural and distorted except when used in special circumstances such as I've discussed. That's because it's not viewed as it was shot. To be correctly viewed, it must be re-transformed by projecting it onto a spherical screen with a fisheye lens, and it must be viewed from the center of the sphere. Read up about Imax. I think it's done that way. A flat print made by a fisheye can only look distorted, no matter how viewed.</p>

<p>Finally, understand that there is no qualitative difference between a telephoto and a rectilinear wide angle lens. If you severely crop the image from a wide angle lens (center of the frame), you've got a telephoto image.</p>

<p>There, that's the Cliff's Notes version of Distortion 101. As I don't really understand your question/problem beyond "I want to buy cooler, more prestigious equipment." I know you have more specific questions than that, but failing to understand your questions, I can't really provide specific answers. However, I feel you can answer your own questions if you better understand the nature of distortion. I've provided you the starting point, and you'll need to read a bit further to fully grasp the concepts.</p>

<p>An afterthought: I assume you realize you can correct barreling and even convert between fisheye and rectilinear geometries in PS. Right? You still have to understand distortion and where it comes from. (Barreling, by the way, is nothing more than a lens design defect.)</p>

<p>Second afterthought: If the distortion that troubles you is one of perspective (e.g. extreme converging lines on walls), you can correct that in PS too. You can eliminate it in the shoot if you either use a tilt/shift lens (expensive) or shoot with an ultrawide like it's a T/S, making sure to keep the shooting angle perpendicular to the plane you want to keep flat to the viewer. In the latter case, you'll have to do a lot of cropping.</p>

<p>As Dan the Canon lens guru already said, good luck! :-)</p>

[dan bachmann]

<p>I own both of these lenses and I found that the EF-S 10-22mm USM at 17mm and 22mm beat the EF 17-40mm f/4L at 17 and 22mm on the cropped body camera (both at f/5.6). The 10-22mm is simply outstanding. It also beat the EF 24mm f/2.8 prime (22mm, both at f/5.6) in my simple tests.</p>