I recently upgraded from a Rebel XT to a 40D. I was using the 17-40L lens as my walkaround lens but recently purchased a 24-105. I figure that is a good walk around but not as good for landscape. I shoot landscape and action sports. I'm wondering if I should keep my 17-40 for a landscape or go with a 10-22 for shooting landscape. What are the benefits to keeping or switching?
I have recently bought a used 5D (with 2700 actuations only). I feel since then gratified. A month ago I traded my 10-22 (I will keep my glorious EOS 20D) with a used 17-40L. They are both great sister lenses. Actually, a closer sister would be the 16-35L, after which the 10-22 is practically modeled, but not as regards aperture (2.8 vs 3.5). The 17-40L is rugged and weathered. Feels solid. I appreciate the extra 5mm over the 10-22 and I do not miss the 1mm at the wide end. Optically, they are both valid performers. The corners give it away. Both are absolutely sharp in the center, but the 17-40L has better corners. Overall, the 17-40 edges out for an overall perception of just more clarity: a reward that comes only from L glass.
In your case, with a "1.6" sensor, you are considering two different lenses. The 17-40 will work just fine, but a good part of its range is covered by the 24-105. I would go for the 10-22. There is a new world to see at 10mm. It is great for indoors, and straight lines are well corrected. Best around f/7.1.
Specifically for the 40D, which is the body I shoot with, you can't go wrong with the 10-22. I owned the 17-40 for about a week and realized that on a crop body, it is just not wide enough (17 * 1.6 = 27.2 at the wide end. There is a HUGE difference between 16mm and 27mm. As far as quality goes, I find the 10-22 to be about as sharp as my other "L" glass and there are others that have reported the same. I also have the 24-105 so the 10-22 range fits nicely.
Roniamarie, here's another strong endorsement for the 10-22 with the 40D. It's a superb, sharp EF-S lens. Several of my personal favorite pictures from 2008 were with the 40D / 10-22 combo. Don't let the fact that it doesn't have a red stripe on it keep you from getting it, especially since you have the 24-105.
ive loved my 10-22 since i got it shortly after its introduction.
Its fabulous but is kind of a pain in the dark. I do like its size (compared to the 24-70/17-40 size) and weight..I would go with the 10-22 for a 40D any day
while the 17-40L is a great lens there is just too much overlap if you have a 24-105 as well.
I paird the Tokina 12-24 with my 24-105. they make a great pair so I dont see why the EFS 10-22 wont be any better
Another endorsement for the 10-22mm. Only problem i have with it is that the zoom and focus rings are the opposite way round to my 17-40L. But while it takes pictures like these, i can live with it:
what's up with the vignetting? is that the lens or filter?
That's a filter vignette for sure. Lens vignettes are much more gradual than that one.
I have both 17-40 and 10-22. Both are great lenses but both have their good and bad points
17-40:
Good:
*High quality of manufacture with weather sealing
*Constant f/stop
*Excellent centre sharpness and excellent contrast throughout.
*Good zoom range for FF
Bad:
*Some barrel distortion at wider settings
*Minor vignetting on FF
*Some moderate CA at corners at wider settings
*Lens hood almost useless
10-22:
Good:
*Good zoom range for 1.6 CF
*Rectilinear throughout zoom range
*Light weight
*Amazingly wide
Bad:
*Construction slightly inferior to L series
*Moderate CA at corners in wide settings (worse that 17-40)
*Mild vignetting at wider settings
*Lens hood almost useless (from 17-40)
I used to use my 17-40 as my standard lens and it could still serve the purpose well. With the arrival of the 10-22, that changed and the new lens stays on my 40D pretty much all the time. In performance they are both good. The difference is mostly theoretical. A lot of the CA errors are correctable through ACR or Lightroom.
Another small point: I don't know why but my 10-22 has deteriorated a bit in corner CA performance in the time I've had it. I suspect a construction issue. It's still a pretty amazing lens and has better distortion-free performance than the 17-40. For 1.6 cameras, it's the bomb in WA zooms.
tamalematt wrote:
How is the 10-22mm in low light? I am also looking into going UW.
Low light performance is nothing special in either case but I use the 17-40 in preference.
17-40 has better contrast and color, 10-22 is much more useful for landscape & cityscape than 17-40. I have both and if only have crop camera, 10-22 definitely to go..
10-22 is *the* ultra-wide for crop cameras IMHO ... last last few mm really opens up your field of view and you can create some fun shots if you are willing to get really close.
