i am trying to decide if i should get the 10-22mm or the 17-40L.
if anyone has used both, is there a big difference in image quality?
the 10-22 is alot wider which would be really nice, but I am really more conserned with the image quality.

I'm also going to get either the 24-105L or the 24-70L, if anyone has any imput on this, i would appreciate it. I know the 24-70 would be alot better in low light, this would be nice, but not a must. And i'm not concerned with the wight difference.

thanks.

Well I can tell you that the image quality of my 17-40 is fantastic and I opted for it instead of the 10-22. The reasons for this are that I plan to upgrade to FF next year, I often find 17mm is wide enough, when 17 isnt wide enough I stitch and this has never been a problem. In fact some of my 30 inch prints wouldnt have half of the quality were it not for the fact that they are stitched.

10mm is massively wider than 17mm if you are happy to stitch and you dont think you really need wider get the 17-40. The image quality of both is stellar. The build of the L is better.

Alex

Since you are considering the 10-22, I am assuming that you have a crop body. All my following comments will be based on this assumption.
If you plan to use the 24-70/105, I do not undertand why do you want to go with 17-40. There are too much overlap. 10-22 sounds to me the best option (you can consider the other 12-24 as well).
Xavier

I had the 10-22 when I had my 20D, and took the forced upgrade to the 17-40L when I moved to the 5D. For my money, the 10-22 was the better lens - sharp corner to corner and all the way through the zoom range. The 17-40 is a great lens up to about 28mm, then it starts to get a little soft. The 10-22 on a crop body is approximately equal to the range of the 16-35L on FF.

I never shot with the 17-40 on a crop body; the crop may solve some of the IQ issues, but then it introduces the crop - so you're not as wide.

FWIW, for wides, you might want to check out manually focused lenses, like Zeiss, Leica, Olympus, etc - Wide isn't Canon's long suit. MF lenses are a lot less expensive than AF lenses because they don't have electronics in them, and when you're shooting wide, AF is of dubious value. And they'll work on FF if you ever upgrade your camera body.

My $0.02, others' mileage may vary...

Have both and like the 10-22 better. Great colors and very sharp at all focal lengths. A lot of fun especially at the wide focal lengths. If you are getting the 24-70 or the 24-105, I don't see the need for the 17-40.

thanks for the comments.
i am going to go with the 10-22.
any thoughts on the 24-105 over the 24-70?

Alex Usherenko wrote:
i am trying to decide if i should get the 10-22mm or the 17-40L.
if anyone has used both, is there a big difference in image quality?
the 10-22 is alot wider which would be really nice, but I am really more conserned with the image quality.

I'm also going to get either the 24-105L or the 24-70L, if anyone has any imput on this, i would appreciate it. I know the 24-70 would be alot better in low light, this would be nice, but not a must. And i'm not concerned with the wight difference.

thanks.



Simple - 1.6 crop body take 10-22, if FF take 17-40L or 16-35L. 24-105L not as bad for low lights too since it has IS, however I prefer this lens on 5D.

davidearls wrote:
The 17-40 is a great lens up to about 28mm, then it starts to get a little soft.

I never heard that before, and its not the experience with mine. Maybe your 17-40 was out of calibration a bit? I did a check on mine, and its sharp throughout the range. Below is a 100% crop (no PP, just convert from RAW and crop) taken with my 17-40 on a 5D...EXIF says 29mm. I had the same results all the way to 40mm (looks like I need to dust off the 24-105, though).

If you are on a crop body go for the 10-22.

I would actually say it has better iq than the 17-40. I had one before I moved up to ff and the images was amazing, its the thing I was most sorry to lose moving to ff.

"10-22 or 17-40L"

I can understand that you want the sharpest lens that your money can get. But are they even comparable? The difference between 10 and 17 mm is H U G E. IMO which is sharper is moot because they cover such different focal length. Simply just get the one that fits your shooting style.

Since both lens produce quite good quality - though with "personalities" in either case - the "quality" issue seems to be the wrong one to consider with such different lenses.

The main issue would seem to be what angles of view you need to cover for your photography. If you need ultrawide then the 10-22 (or similar) is the option that meets your needs.

That said, I shot the 17-40 on crop and now use it on full-frame. It is an extremely sharp lens in the center of the frame, but it does suffer from some corner softness issues at wider apertures.

Is that a problem? Depends on what and how you shoot. If you shoot landscape you'll like stop the lens down to f/8 or so on a crop camera and this greatly controls the corner softness issues. (I shoot mine at f/11 or f/16 of FF and there this is really not significant at all.)

With other subjects, it depends on how important the corners are. If you are hoping for crystal sharp across the entire frame at wide open apertures, it isn't going to happen with any wide or ultra-wide zoom.

Dan

Some 17-40's are soft on the long end.
If you get a well balanced/sharp thruout lens, its IQ should be better than the 10-22.

However, the key difference is in the FL/view angle....that's where those two lenses are not interchangeable. The 10-22 is extreme, and it stays WA even at the long end. Kinda special effects lens. Thus you gotta know what you want a WA lens for.

The 17-40 is more useful as a general walk around lens since it allows up to normal field of view/short telephoto on the 1.6 crop cameras.

I was never able to make this decision so I bought both. The 10-22 would probably be a better option paired with the 24-105L.

I just had the same dilemma today, but since I plan on upgrading to a 1.3 or FF body within a year, it doesn't make since to invest in EF-S lens to me. I opted for the 17-40L because it's one of the cheapest L lens and I need a wide angle zoom lens. I wanted a 16-35, but the cost wasn't justified for it yet. I might upgrade to the 16-35 mkII next year, but I plan on using this as a studio/landscape lens where I plan on shooting f/8 or smaller. I don't need to spend double the money for f/2.8 if I'm not going to be using it.

I have the 24-70L as my general purpose lens and I have to say, it's great specially for low light and sports. If canon came out with a 24-105 f/2.8 IS... yeah... I'd be on it like a fat kid on cup cakes. Even if it adds another .5-1lbs.

PetKal wrote: "Some 17-40's are soft on the long end."

While the lens is at its sharpest at focal lengths below 40mm, I sure wouldn't describe it as "soft" at 40mm.

Every zoom lens has its optimum focal lenghts at which some measureable (often barely measureable and frequently not very significant) "best" quality is achieved. But that doesn't mean that it is weak at other focal lengths.

I will certainly agree that the 17-40 (like most lenses) has a particular "personality" that makes it more suited for certain types of work than for others.

(And back a few minutes later...)

I just did a quick comparison. Earlier this year I took a series of photos to test some lenses on my 5D at various apertures and focal lengths. Here are two comparison shots done with my 17-40. Both are 100% crops from a bit below the center of the frame. Both were shot at f/11 at 1/125 second. Both were converted from RAW with no changes. Identical sharpening processes were applied to both files in CS3. No other changes were made.

24mm:

danmitchell wrote:
PetKal wrote: "Some 17-40's are soft on the long end."

While the lens is at its sharpest at focal lengths below 40mm, I sure wouldn't describe it as "soft" at 40mm.
Dan

My experience:
At 40mm the lens copy #1 and #2 were soft.
The lens #3 is fine and I still have it.
All three copies were nicely sharp at 17mm.