I have 50D and 5D classic+35mmL,85 f1.8,135mmL, 60mm macro and 10-22mm
Well, my last idea....
Is there any sens to sell 10-22mm and take instead used 17-40...with probably no cost?
Looking for advice....I think that would be nice to have double lens...EF lenses fits to both of my cameras.Will lose 1mmof wide angle.
Looking for advice.
Thank you.
The 10-22 is a little sharper in the corners, and i think has less distortion. The crop factor also means that you get the same depth of field with a larger aperture than on FF. Overall the 10-22 is arguably better optically.
However, the 50D is not as good a camera as the 5D so the overall FF package is felt by many to outperform the crop package. Practically speaking though, you probably won't see any difference unless you print above A3 or are afflicted with a bad case of crop-itis.
I did just this and it's the biggest regret I've ever had from a lens decision. The 17-40 as a wide angle on the 5DII is nowhere near the performance of the 10-22 on the 50D. I'm sure this may be just my copy, but for me, it was night and day. I'm seriously considering selling the 17-40 in favour of the 10-22 again.
I used a 10-22 and 17-40 on a 20D for a few years. I liked the 17-40 as a walk-around lens, a bit on the short side but great IQ on the crop. The 10-22 was fantastic - really saved the 20D for me as I am a 'wide' sort of shooter.
The 17-40 impresses me less on the 5D2 than I though - largely the edges are poor. Since the pixel pitch is the same on the 20D and 5D2, this is significant for me.
The 50D is a high density small sensor ( center critical ) while the 5D is a lower density large sensor so the edges come into play. I think I almost liked the 10-22 on the 20D more than the 17-40 on the 5D2. Do not get me wrong the 17-40 is great on 5D2 and will be on the 5D as well - the lack of edge/corner sharpness on the 17-40 has me looking into either the 24L or maybe the new Zeiss 21.
You have a tough choice - I suspect the 50D pushes the 10-22 to its limits. The key will be if the 17-40 is wide enough for you shooting style on the 50D for me it was not - so the 10-22 was a must. I suspect that you may be unimpressed with the 17-40 on the 5D when you shoot it alongside your 35L. The benefit of the zoom at the wide end is significant though. I do prefer the 'look' of the 17-40 on the 5D2 over the 10-22 on the 20D so I suspect the 17-40 on 5D will have a slight edge.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
if you go for the 17-40 then you have both an Ultra wide for FF and a Wide for the Crop. Thats a win win
+1: I use the Sigma 10-20 lens on my Rebel XT while for my 5D II I have the 17-40. I will keep the Sigma 10-20 lens since I take the smaller (and meanwhile less valuable) XT camera with me on short trips where I want to reduce the weight of gear and luggage.
tonyhart wrote:
I did just this and it's the biggest regret I've ever had from a lens decision. The 17-40 as a wide angle on the 5DII is nowhere near the performance of the 10-22 on the 50D. I'm sure this may be just my copy, but for me, it was night and day. I'm seriously considering selling the 17-40 in favour of the 10-22 again.
Send it to Canon under warranty first. Chances are they can fix it.
i've used the 10-22 on the 40D and I have the 5D + 17-40 combo.
Personally, I like the 17-40 deal more due to the overall package, but find it hard to really see anything really wrong with the 10-22 on a crop camera. They both perform really well...
Still arguable, just less so 