| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2007 05:16:41 PM · #1 |
Background data: I currently own the EF 17-40mm L and have been using it as my landscape wide-angle lens. Although itâs not as wide as the 10-22, I have been avoiding the EF-S lenses with the full expectation that I would go âfull frameâ on my next camera purchase after the 20D. However, I recently pre-ordered the 40D (price and features just too hard to pass up to wait for a $2.5K+ 6D), so I know Iâm going to be using the 1.6x crop for the next 2-3 years at least. On a full frame camera, the 17-40mm would have been plenty wide enough for me, but since Iâm staying with the 1.6x crop for a few more years, Iâm wondering if I should sell the 17-40mm for the 10-22mm.
Question: How does the image quality compare between the two lenses? Is the 10-22mm as sharp as the 17-40mm? (Iâm looking for feedback from those who have owned both.) I have read many reviews that have considered the 10-22mm good enough to be an L-Series lens, but Iâm wondering if the build and quality are really there. I note that 669 DPCâers own the 17-40mm versus 414 owners of the 10-22mm â is this telling of the quality of the lens, or the lure of the L-Series?
Thoughts? Comments? Advice? Your input would be greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 05:28:48 PM · #2 |
Hi Mark. I've had both lenses and ended up having to sell the 10-22mm when I bought the 5D. The 17-40 is definitely the higher quality lens, but I found the sharpness and overall image quality of the 10-22 to be pretty high. The main issue I had with the wider lens was a lot of CA around the edges, but you can correct for that.
If you're sticking with the APS-size sensor, then I would definitely go for the 10-22mm lens. It was by far my favorite lens because of how freakishly wide it was and because of the funky distortion you get on close-up photos. Even though the L lens has inarguably higher quality glass (with it's commensurate contrast and saturation), I can't recommend the 10-22mm lens highly enough.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 05:30:43 PM · #3 |
I have owned both.
If it was me I would cancel the order for the 40d and go out and buy a 5d, as the 17-40L on the 5d is a match hade in heaven.
In saying that if you must stick with the crop, the 10-22 is brilliant, and yes the build quality is there. But no matter what people say it does have a lot of distortion at the wide end ( altough thats not always a bad thing).
As for selling ypour 17-40? thats your call, remembering that you will have to buy one again in a couple of years, with all the rooting around just get the 5d and be done with it.
nick
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 05:36:08 PM · #4 |
I wish they made a 10-22 that fit my 5D. :D
I have both lenses, but I haven't taken the time to do a comparison. I bought it so my wife would have a good wide angle lens for her 350D XT. It's a damn nice lens.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 06:54:02 PM · #5 |
I haven't owned the 17-40, but do have the 10-22 for a year now.
Based on my use/experience...
as a night lens landscape, forget it. I suppose it's the ultra wideness, but ive not been able to get a nice night shot with it (lights are not in focus across the lens...very ugly results).
on the plus side, there IS NO FLARE at all. you can shoot into the sun without fear of any artifacts. I wish my other lenses were this good on this aspect.
It is very sharp, and fast and accurate focusing, and you can close focus within 2 inches or so - nice for some effects with a wide angle!
there is some distortion, but I only notice it if people are in the edge of the frame.
as to build quality - how often do you drop your lenses? Ever know anyone to wear out a lens? IMO build quality if oft discussed but i've yet to see what the issue is with it...my 'plastic' cars of the past few years outlast the 'steel' ones from 20 years ago, and phones are plastic and get dropped a lot yet rarely break.
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 18:56:21.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 07:02:22 PM · #6 |
i am going to try not to drop my 17-40 - but i seem to be unable to avoid the hounds anxious tongue... ;}
the stuff is more durable than you'd probably think, even if it's made of plastic...
Message edited by author 2007-08-30 19:03:11.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2007 10:17:14 PM · #7 |
Thanks for all the comments! Not sure if Iâm leaning one way or the other nowâ¦still on the fence. I would love to just hold onto the 17-40 and pick up the 10-22 as another lens, but Iâm already in the doghouse with the Misses for the pre-ordered 40D. (I havenât even discussed my investigations into Alien Bees â that would TOTALLY blow her cork!) I might see if I could rent or borrow a 10-22mm somewhere to try out first.
Thanks again for input!!
|
|
|
|
09/01/2007 02:20:25 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Mick:
I wish they made a 10-22 that fit my 5D. :D |
They do. :)
I think I'm going to spring for the 10-22mm over the 17-40mm soon here. I don't think that EF-S lenses are going to drop in value anytime soon, Canon has quite a bit invested in that system.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 11:15:06 AM EST.
