bikewithadam wrote:
Maybe instead of uncovering bad copies of lenses your test illustrates what has already been said by many out there: the 16-35 is twice the cost for an extra stop and not necessarily as sharp, and that the 10-22 is (gasp, don't say this about an EF-S lens--since everyone knows they'll be obsolete in no more than six months) a great performer. If I had full frame I'd get a 17-40. If I was a reporter and needed the extra stop and the company was paying for it, I'd get the 16-35. If I was a professional and shot landscapes I'd get the 17-40. If I owned a 20D/30D and did anything I'd get the 10-22 and *definitely* not look back.
Thank you klam for this post and all your testing. You have reinforced my notion that I do not need to buy a 16-35 or 17-40 for my 5D as long as I have the 10-22 and a crop camera.
One thing that hasn't come up here is distortion, and its important. The 17-40L is sharp and cheap, but it has much more barrel distortion than the 16-35L, which is very well-corrected. I don't know about the 10-22 since I have never owned it....
