10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 OR 17-40mm f/4 L need opinions

03/29/2009 06:50:08 PM · #1

the topic says it all i want opinions on both lenses since they are basically the same price...

what are the advantages and disadvantages of each in your opinion?

i want a wider lens (17 is wide enough but ten is cool too) and these are the two that its come down to...

opinions/suggestions about any other lenses are welcome as well. and i use a 450D right now, dont plan to upgrade soon and if i do upgrade it will most likely be to a 40/50D so the ef-s thing is a moot point to me. thanks so much!!!!!

Tez

03/29/2009 07:10:12 PM · #2

well, i'd take the L because it's frankly awesome and built like a tank- dustproof, splash proof and whatever else proof. And I know you said you weren't thinking of upgrading your body but the L will last 20 years and still perform so I would take the L because of the full frame capability. Also, for me, buying the EF-S lenses is kinda like throwing money away- I don't see the sense in buying an EF-s lens for $500, then selling it buy an L for another $500 when I could have just got the L right away.

pamelasue

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/29/2009 07:22:22 PM · #3

well ... both are fabulous choices ... depends on what you're looking to do ... 17 isn't super wide on a crop sensor, so if you're wanting to shoot expansive landscapes I'd go with the 10-22. I picked the 10-22 and don't regret it at all ... I find it to be just about L glass quality, but made for a crop sensor ... someday I might consider buying the 17-40 but there are other lenses on my wish list before that one ...

03/29/2009 07:26:09 PM · #4

You have the 28-135mm already, so the 10-22mm is a better fit to your range. It is basicallyd esigned to be the crop-sensor equivalent of the 17-40mm on the full frame. I think it's a much more useful range...

R.

Simms

03/29/2009 08:02:21 PM · #5

Agree - 10-22 on a 1.6x body.

michaelmonn

03/30/2009 09:20:34 AM · #6

so unfortunately i still dont know what exactly i should buy... if i were to get the 17-40 i would sell my 28-135 and buy a 70-200 f/4 (i wouldnt if i were to buy the 10-22) i know that the 17-40 isnt super wide on a crop body but how unwide is it picture-wise. also whats the info on the optical quality/ downfalls of both. thanks so much for the help so far its really been great! :)

ShutterHack

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

03/30/2009 09:30:11 AM · #7

What type of shots are you looking to take and do you ever have plans on getting a full frame sensor?

03/30/2009 09:33:48 AM · #8

Originally posted by ShutterHack:

What type of shots are you looking to take and do you ever have plans on getting a full frame sensor?

He said he has no plans fr a full-frame upgrade in his original post...

R.

ShutterHack

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

03/30/2009 09:38:58 AM · #9

lol, Thanks Bear so much for my attention to detail.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/30/2009 09:45:41 AM · #10

Originally posted by michaelmonn:

17mm on the crop sensor is the equivalent of 27.2mm on full-frame 35mm sensors. That's a little bit of a wide angle, but not very wide. Personally, I would find it very limiting. Not satisfactory at all. Your mileage may vary...

Here's a comparison showing 35mm, 24mm, 17mm, and 10mm on the same interior shot. The difference between 17mm and 10mm, as you can see, is dramatic.

R.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

03/30/2009 09:59:21 AM · #11

10-22. Hands down. Even if I eventually upgrade to a full frame sensor (which I don't plan on doing) I will have more than gotten my money's worth out of the 10-22, and probably would in fact always keep a cropped sensor body just to use that lens. Love it to death. (Do not use my results with that lens as any sort of indicator of its capabilities, however. But I do have fun with it!)

slickchik

OM System OM-1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

03/30/2009 11:21:52 AM · #12

10-22 no question. You will not regret it.

goinskiing

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/30/2009 11:24:42 AM · #13

Even IF you went FF, the resale value of the 10-22 wouldn't hurt you much if any.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/30/2009 11:33:20 AM · #14

10-22, no question. If you ever DO go full frame, you can sell it for a 17-40... otherwise the latter model wouldn't be noticeably wider than the kit lens.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/30/2009 11:52:41 AM · #15

Originally posted by scalvert:

10-22, no question. If you ever DO go full frame, you can sell it for a 17-40... otherwise the latter model wouldn't be noticeably wider than the kit lens.

Except he doesn't HAVE the kit lens :-) If he did, this would be a no-brainer.

R.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

03/30/2009 11:58:16 AM · #16

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

he doesn't HAVE the kit lens :-) If he did, this would be a no-brainer.

I know, but even the stabilized version runs about $160 new. The 17-40 wouldn't be appreciably wider (27mm vs. 29mm), and although the image quality is better, it lacks IS and offers less zoom range. If you're going to spend money on a wider angle zoom, then get a wide angle zoom!

HighNooner

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/30/2009 12:02:05 PM · #17

I am glad this is being said about the 10-22
10-22

Message edited by author 2009-03-30 12:02:39.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

03/30/2009 12:19:05 PM · #18

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
he doesn't HAVE the kit lens :-) If he did, this would be a no-brainer.

I know, but even the stabilized version runs about $160 new. The 17-40 wouldn't be appreciably wider (27mm vs. 29mm), and although the image quality is better, it lacks IS and offers less zoom range. If you're going to spend money on a wider angle zoom, then get a wide angle zoom!

Gotcha! Good point.

R.

digitalpins

Canon EOS-60D

03/30/2009 12:23:06 PM · #19

10-22 - you will love it!

This lens has been stuck on my Canon ever since I brought from a fellow DPC'er here

I just love my 10-22

michaelmonn

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/30/2009 12:37:14 PM · #20

thanks sooooo much for all your answers!!! i originally was leaning toward the 17-40 BUT alot of good words and good photos have opened my eyes to the 10-22 thanks alot again (which i think im going to end up buying)!:):)

ps: if anyone is looking to sell their 10-22 or their 17-40 for that matter please let me know:)

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/30/2009 12:41:40 PM · #21

Depends on your style of photography and what/how you shoot. They are VERY different lens. I'm not a super wide fan so i consider the 10-22 a specialty use lens and don't use it much while the 17-40 rarely leaves my camera. but that's just me. A friend just got the 10-22 and can't imagine life without it now.

If you could rent or try one it would tell you a lot.

soup

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/30/2009 02:27:53 PM · #22

i'm not sure you're going to find many downfalls with either choice - except for the FF body aspect - which doesn't seem to be an issue...

but the 70-200 f:4 and 17-40 f:4 - IMO are a good match. i'm still considering the 10-22 as well. but feel i wouldn't use it as much as i anticipate. at least not with the style of photos i take at the moment.

if i planned on starting to do a lot of landscape photos the 10-22 would be purchased already - while keeping the other two.

ShutterHack

Canon EOS-1D Mark III