10-22 f/3.4-4.5 EF-S vs 17-40mm f/4L EF

[Scarlet Fever]

After having a look at my needs, i'm thinking a wide angle lens would be more useful than a telephoto.

I've found two Canon lenses, the 10-22 f/3.4-4.5 EF-S and the 17-40mm f/4L EF.

I have a 40D at the moment, and I'm not thinking of upgrading to a full-frame camera any time soon, so the EF-S mount isn't a worry.

From what i've read, these are both great lenses, but i haven't seen them compared. I'll be using it for portraiture and architectural photos for a magazine I'm working on with a mate.

Which one would you buy given the choice? Is there a superior 3rd party lens I should be looking at?

 

[JNB]

I just got the 10-22 recently, and after the nifty fifty, I think it's a great lens for the money. I haven's shot with the 17-40, but I don't think the 10-22 would disappoint. If jessica. catches this thread, I'm sure she'll have sage advice.

 

[GoCubsGo]

If you're not using these on a full frame camera I believe you need to account for the crop factor. I do not shoot Canon but the same is true for my Nikon. My 10-20 (sigma) is a true "digital" lens so it is 10mm. Whereas my 70-210 is not a digital lens and therefore it is really a 105-315mm.

That is the first point. If you need to account for the crop factor then you would be better off with the 10-22 or looking into the Canon mount Sigma 10-20. That is a highly regarded lens to be honest. I rarely recommend a 3rd party lens, but this one I am rather comfortable with.

Second is whatever lens you choose for architectural photos will not be suitable for portraits. Using a wide for portraits will yield less than favorable and flattering results. Wides are decent for group shots, but anything else I would pass on that. The lens with a 40mm on the long end may get you semi decent portraits if you have that crop factor (1.6 on canons I think) to consider, but you'll be better off getting a nice 85mm or a mid-range zoom for portraits.

I don't believe there is one good lens wide to long. There are some that are passable, but if you're going to spend your cash on a nice body get a nice wide, mid-range zoom (24-70 etc), and telephoto if necessary.

And as far as sage advice...it's advice, not sure if it's sage.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

40d with no plans of upgrading to full frame in the future screams 10-22 (or 12-24, etc) unless you rarely shoot wide. 17mm is wide, but not super wide, on a crop body and that extra 7mm is a mindblowing difference.

You really must try both (perhaps rent or try at a local store) before buying to appreciate the serious difference between the pair.

 

[JNB]

For an idea of what the 10-22 gives you on the wider end (on a XT body):

 

[Scarlet Fever]

40d with no plans of upgrading to full frame in the future screams 10-22 (or 12-24, etc) unless you rarely shoot wide. 17mm is wide, but not super wide, on a crop body and that extra 7mm is a mindblowing difference.

You really must try both (perhaps rent or try at a local store) before buying to appreciate the serious difference between the pair.

I'm planning on checking them out in the shop sometime soon, but school and work holds me back most of the time.

I did think of that point; the 17-40 will effectively be a 23-64mm, compared to 16-35mm for the 10-22mm. The 10-22 is looking good so far.

Thanks for all the advice, people. JohnNotBeatle, those are the kind of pics i needed to see. Thanks for them! jessica., I'll check out that sigma 10-20 when I go to the shop.

 

[R.Youden]

I have just purchases a Canon 40D and found this website invaluable in helping me decide which lenses to get:

Canon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Review

The reviews are very thorough and offer a nice comparison with related lenses.

 

[OreoCookie]

Have you had a look at Tokina's new 2.8/11-16 zoom? It's even better than its predecessor (the venerable 4/12-24). The built quality is on par with L-level glass and the optics are superior to the 10-22 Canon lens.

The 17-40 is arguably a marvelous lens, but it corresponds to roughly 27-64 on full frame/film, so it's not an ultra-wide angle lens, but rather a `bread-and-butter' zoom and in my opinion, you can't compare the two. Since you wrote, you would like to have an ultra-wide angle lens, this would exclude the 17-40.

 

[harcosparky]

I am biased.

I also own a 40D and use the 17-40 f/4.0 L lens on it.

I know the EF-S lenses are getting better, quite good by some reviews but I am still hooked on "L" lenses.

I admit though I am looking at some of the faster EF-S lenses, though I have not bought one ... yet.

All the talk about Full Frame, Crop and so on is good but I strongly recommend you do what I did.

Put each lens on your camera and try them out ... keep your personal shooting needs in mind as well.

 

[invoke]

i own the 17-40mm and would highly recommend it, unless you intend on doing ultra-wide shots. on a crop-body, the 17-40 is useable as a general purpose lens but the 10-22 is not (even at 22, it's too wide for normal applications).

i know you mentioned you have no plans to move up to full-frame, but i assure you, full-frame will soon become more affordable and more aggressively marketed as it becomes accessible. you'll wish you invested in compatible lenses.

about the 17-40 itself, it is very well constructed, being an L-lens, and weather-sealed (which the 10-22 is not). from personal experience, the optics are very good, i cannot report any instances of noticeable fringing or heavy distortion. however, i have read reviews that claim the 10-22 has great image quality as well, so it's a moot point. i haven't tried it myself.

and as mentioned, the 10-20mm from sigma has been a very popular option for people and i have seen great pictures from it (but also several reports of bad copies). i used it myself for a while on my canon body, but the pictures i took seemed very washed out and low-contrast. post processing needed.