I currently have a 30D and plan to add FF, when the picture is clearer on where Canon is taking the 5D. I own the 10-22 and it seems that I pull it out a lot in low light situations. I’ve shot it both with flash and without. Flash seems to be real tricky with this lens, maybe all WA lenses? Feel free to elaborate on your flash experience with WA.
I clearly would like to have a WA for my FF body, so I guess the real questions are 17-40 vs. 16-35 and would you keep your 10-22 and why. I have enough saved for the 16-34, without selling the 10-22, but the wish list is long, so I don’t want to just keep it without good reason. I don’t see my self ever walking around with two bodies outfitted with WA, but it would be nice to have the flexibility to carry one body or the other, with the flexibility of WA.
I left my 10-22/20D setup for a 17-35/5D setup. Even if I had the funds, I probably would have sold the 10-22 anyways. What's the sense having it if you already have an ultra wide for the full frame camera?
The benefit to having a 17-40L or 16-35L is that you can use it on either of your camera bodies...and achieve quite a different effect. If you're getting a wide angle for your full frame, you might as well abandon the 10-22 unless you can really afford to keep it around.
I agree, I had the 10-22 with my 30D as well, but when I added the 5D to the arsenal, I actually managed to trade the 10-22 straight across for the 17-40. I have chosen the F4 zooms over the 2.8's predominately because I shoot mostly landscapes where I want greater DOF. For anything low light, I have F1.8 primes that range from the 28-85, someday, I'll add the 135 to that and be pretty much set. Really no reason to keep the 10-22 once you move up to FF.
Ransome wrote:
Flash seems to be real tricky with this lens, maybe all WA lenses? Feel free to elaborate on your flash experience with WA.
Without some kind of diffuser, a flash is unlikely to provide full scene coverage for ultra-wide angles. Going off of memory here, but I think on a crop body a flash like the 580ex II will be unable to cover the full scene below 15mm or so.
You can be certain that the 16-35, Mark I or Mark II, is a better lens than the 17-40 and is obviously significantly faster than the 10-22. Under certain circumstances, this is much more important that the optical differences, if any, between those two lenses.
With f/2.8 on the 16-35 you capture twice as much light as the f/4 17-40. Under low light and other demanding conditions, this can become very significant. The 16-35 is also sharper than the 17-40 edge-to-edge at all apertures and also has better contrast and color rendition.
I know there are a few people, reviewers included, who don't see much difference between the 17-40 and 16-35. But having owned both and used both on a 5D as well as a 1Ds and 40D, the differences were quite noticeable and more than justified the additional cost of the 16-35, which I still own and use for nearly 99% of my interior work.
If you can afford a 16-35, it is the lens to get. If you can't, the 17-40 makes for a good but compromised alternative. Either one should outperform the 10-22 (except, of course, for focal length) and both, as has been said, are compatible with any Canon you might end up with in the future. The same cannot be said of the 10-22, which doesn't work on Canon's 1.3 crop cameras or full-frame.
bpark42 wrote:
Without some kind of diffuser, a flash is unlikely to provide full scene coverage for ultra-wide angles. Going off of memory here, but I think on a crop body a flash like the 580ex II will be unable to cover the full scene below 15mm or so.
Very good point, I've been meaning to get one of these. I have the 580ex I.
Thanks for the reminder and keep the info/opinions coming.
bpark42 wrote:
Without some kind of diffuser, a flash is unlikely to provide full scene coverage for ultra-wide angles. Going off of memory here, but I think on a crop body a flash like the 580ex II will be unable to cover the full scene below 15mm or so.
taken from Canon USA:
"Flash head zooms automatically to cover 24mm to 105mm lenses (with a full-frame 35mm camera); Automatic adjustment for lens conversion factor with EOS-1D Mark II and EOS 20D (camera requires firmware upgrade) Wide-angle pull-down panel allows coverage with lenses as wide as 14mm (on a full-frame camera) -- full coverage not possible on EF15mm f/2.8 fisheye lens."
on a crop body, the 10-22 works out to 16mm, so you'd have to fold the built-in diffuser down to get coverage all the way to the ends, but it would be there.
I'm renting one tomorrow and can test this out, if you'd like.
agentgraves wrote:
on a crop body, the 10-22 works out to 16mm, so you'd have to fold the built-in diffuser down to get coverage all the way to the ends, but it would be there.
I think the Canon specs. are a little optimistic. I do use the built in diffuser and I think it does work to soften some of the harshness from a full blast of flash, I don't think it does much to substantially broaden the light distribution. Since the earlier post, I've been investigating diffusers and mini-light boxes.
I always get good value from you guys, keep it com'in and thanks.
The 16-35 and the 17-40 are both excellent lenses, but each is suited for slightly different types of photography.
If wide open shooting is your main thing (e.g. handheld low light photography at f/2.8 or f/4) then the 16-35 may well be worth the extra cost. Its advantage is _at_ the open end of the apertures.
If shooting at smaller apertures is more your thing (e.g. - architecture or landscape with big DOF) then the 17-40 is an equal or slightly better performer, especially on FF where its f/11-f/16 performance is quite good.
I tried the 10-22, 17-40 and 16-35II on my Rebel XTi over a year ago and kept the 16-35II. I went through two copies of 17-40 and two copies of 10-22 before returning all 4 lenses and got the 16-35II. For some reason I was getting under-exposed images with those two lenses but not the 16-35II. I suspect something was not right with my XTi. I posted in this forum to ask for help along with sample pictures, but no one could give me a definite answer other than to "just bump up the exposure compensation when using those 2 lenses". Anyhow, the 16-35II did not have the same problems and was clearly better so I kept it. Now the 16-35II is used on my 5D and is still going strong.
Stunnaz wrote:
For some reason I was getting under-exposed images with those two lenses but not the 16-35II. I suspect something was not right with my XTi.
So, something was wrong with your camera... so you bought a different lens... ;-(
In stead of 16-35, carry a 16mm, 18mm, 20mm, 24mm and 35mm. Instead of 100-400, carry a 100mm, 200mm, 300mm and 400mm. Carrying more is always better, that way you can develop your muscles.
In stead of 16-35, carry a 16mm, 18mm, 20mm, 24mm and 35mm. Instead of 100-400, carry a 100mm, 200mm, 300mm and 400mm. Carrying more is always better, that way you can develop your muscles.
I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. While I typically carry a bag full of primes, I think it is stretching it to say that 4 lenses are always better than one, especially considering that 2 of them don't exist. I would say that for the most part, primes serve a different purpose than zooms, and unless you are using them for strictly creative purpose, there are very few people who can say that they absolutely need the small gain in IQ that you get from a prime compared to an L zoom.
I have been seriously thinking of getting a decent wide angle lens for the 30D. At the moment the only wide angle I have is a 24-85 and I’m not overly impressed with it. It could be that I’ve been spoiled by L lenses. Anyway I’ve come down to two lenses the EF-S 10-22 or the 17-40 L (cant afford the 16-35). My question here is Can the 10-22 match the L lens for IQ?
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Gary, what are your two pictures in this thread specifically intended to be demonstrating?
The top is what I typically get out of my 16-35mm and the last a typical shot using the 10-22mm. I thought the context made it self evident. Apparently I left room for confusion.
Guys, thanks for your input. I've decided to go with the 16-35 and keep the 10-22 for now. I guess I can sell it as the camera fund dwindles or when Canon delivers a 200-400 4.0 L, like the Nikon lens. Well, I can hope can't I. Sure would feel good hooked up to a shiny new 5D II.
