The 10-22 is a bit overpriced though. Unless you need 10mm, the Tokina 11-16 and Tokina 12-24 are better value propositions. They arguably have better IQ too
Dawei Ye wrote:
The 10-22 is a bit overpriced though. Unless you need 10mm, the Tokina 11-16 and Tokina 12-24 are better value propositions. They arguably have better IQ too
the canon 10-22 has better flare resistant though (if the OP care about it)
In my opinion, having owned both, the 10-22 destroys the 17-40. I know my 17-40 copy is a poor copy, but all the same. I wish I'd never sold my 10-22 as it was a truly phenomenal lens!
I held off making the jump to a digital SLR system until the the 20D and 10-22mm became available and the 10-22mm is one of the reasons I stayed with 1.6 and a 50D instead of going full frame.
As others have stated the difference of 10mm on the wide end vs 17mm is significant, especially shooting in close quarters or tilted when dramatic perspective distortion is desired...
Kept level there is relatively little distortion, except the astigmatic correction stretching which is characteristic of any UWA.. http://super.nova.org/TP/InteriorBlend.jpg
It is the lens I have the most fun using because it provides other than normal "by eye" perspective and the one I used for walkabouts because it it so small and light in weight, but no lightweight performance-wise
The 24-105 is just as good a landscape lens as the 17-40, but I agree that's a lot of overlap, so I'd probably swap the 17-40L for one of the following:
In my experience on a crop camera within the limited overlap, the 17-40 by a little. On full frame versus crop, people tell me 17-40 by a margin (but not in a different ballpark).
However, check out other lengths and apertures for a fuller picture.
As others have said, I wouldn't want to shoot landscapes on a 1.6x crop with a 17mm lens. I love my 17-40, but I have mine on a full frame camera where I think it works as a lens.
