10-22mm or 17-40mm wide angle lens

john starkey

john starkey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,389
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,
I'm looking at one of the above lenses,I've read reviews on both and the 10-22mm is highly rated,even better than the 17-40mm L,does anyone have experience of useing both and which one would they recommend,
regards john.
 
I think it depends which camera they are used opon, on a FF camera the 17-40 is the choice (you can't use the canon 10-22 on a FF camera), for a crop camera probably the 10-22.

The 17-40 F4L lens is a highly rated lens, and is a L lens, therefore the build quality is better than non L lenses.

It would be helpful if you could indicate the type of photography the lens would be used for.
 
I own a 10-22mm and I've been toying with the idea of selling it and getting the 17-40mm L.
I've had a play with a 17-40mm L and although I think it's a very goods, I can't see anything I would personally gain from changing lenses.
I think perhaps it would be more beneficial on a full frame body but that's not an avenue I will persue for a few years.
 
Having used a sigma 10-20 and owning a 10-22 Canon i would personally save money and get the sigma, you would be hard to tell the difference.

As for the 17-40L although its a great lens, its just not wide enough on a crop.
 
As has been said the 17-40L would be considered 'wide angle' on a full frame camera but not very wide on cropped sensor.

I started with a 17-85mm lens on a Canon 40D and found myself getting a 10-20 as the 17 didn't really allow me to get those extra wide angles.

Of the two I would prefer the 17-40L but if you really want wide angles go for the 10-22
 
i had the 10- 22 and also have the 17 -40. i found the corners quite soft on the 10 - 22. i have now added a 5D mk2 to my kit bag and the 17 - 40 is producing some great images.

Stew
 
It depends on what other lenses you already have. The 10-22 would be a good choice to go with a 24-105L for instance. However since I got a 17-55IS I have rarely used my 10-22 or 24-105L, so maybe you should consider that as an alternative to the 17-40L. Advantages of the 17-40L are better build quality, better weather proofing and usable on full frame. If these are important to you then it makes the decision easy.
 
Chaz Photos said:
The Sigma 10-20 mm is also a Hot lens
Click to expand...

What do you mean by a Hot lens?

edit

ops thought op had listed sigma 10-20, I now realise ehat you mean, and you are right it is a great lens.
 
Thank you guys,
sorry I should have mentioned what camera I have,it's 450d my first dslr,I will upgrade
next year but not to a full frame camera,probably the 50D, saying that I'm really pleased with my 450d,I think maybe the 10-22mm canon will be the one,
thanks you,
take care all john.
 
if you are upgrading to full frame the sigma 10-20 willbe no good as it is a crop framme lens.


sorry miss read first post and thought you were asking abount 10-20 sigma when it was the cannon lrns, my mistake.
 
Get what you need now, not in a couple of years time. The 17-40L is not considered an UWA on a crop, I had the Sigma 10-20 on a 40D and as from last week have upgraded to a 17-40L on a 5DII..............you wont have any problem selling the 10-22 if you go FF.
 
I had a 10-20mm on the 400D. When I moved to FF I sold that and bought the 17-40L. I can definitely tell the increase in quality as would be expected but like has already been said it depends on the body also. If you plan on going FF in future you could always sell the 10-22 and get the 17-40 when you need it. The 5dmk2 17-40L combo is fantastic.
 
So you want wide angle:
- if you have a crop sensor
- then get a 10-22
- else if you have a full frame (5D / 5DII)
- then get a 17-40 (or 16-35 :D)


the 10-22 on a 1.6x sensor is about the same as a 17-40 on a full frame.
the 17-40 on a 1.6x sensor would make a lovely 'walking around' lens, something like 28 - 65, but it wont be a wide angle lens.
 
Hi John,
I think there are a various things to take into account. In reality the question may be which lens to get first as they do not really compete in terms of usability. I personally would pick the “L series” lens, it covers a useful range and is unlikely to disappoint. You can always complement it with a 10-22mm at a later date. I have been lucky enough to have a 16-35mm for a while and have recently solved the wide angle issue with a used 5D.
As you can see there are various suggestions in the above replies but until you decide what you want to photograph only you can really choose. Good luck with your decision.
 
mikeyt said:
the 10-22 on a 1.6x sensor is about the same as a 17-40 on a full frame.
the 17-40 on a 1.6x sensor would make a lovely 'walking around' lens, something like 28 - 65, but it wont be a wide angle lens.
Click to expand...

Nice clear summation.
 
patrickeaton said:
Hi John,
I think there are a various things to take into account. In reality the question may be which lens to get first as they do not really compete in terms of usability. I personally would pick the “L series” lens, it covers a useful range and is unlikely to disappoint. You can always complement it with a 10-22mm at a later date. I have been lucky enough to have a 16-35mm for a while and have recently solved the wide angle issue with a used 5D.
As you can see there are various suggestions in the above replies but until you decide what you want to photograph only you can really choose. Good luck with your decision.
Click to expand...

Patrick, thank you for such a great reply,at this moment in time i cant see myself ever going FF,im 55 and only just getting into this great hobby and i think getting the best non FF i can afford next year will have to be it,
the reason i want uwa lens is for indoor pics like museums and stuff,and landscape pics,:thinking:saying that ive always been a guy who likes to try the best i can afford,maybe FF one day,
take care john.
 
john starkey said:
the reason i want uwa lens is for indoor pics like museums and stuff,and landscape pics
Click to expand...

This opens a whole new can of worms.
You might find the lens struggles with low light in some museums.
This is when an f/2.8 lens would come in handy.
Obviously for landscapes a 10-22mm is a god choice.
I'm playing a waiting game for the new Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8VC to be released for use it low light conditions.
 
mikeyt said:
the 10-22 on a 1.6x sensor is about the same as a 17-40 on a full frame.
the 17-40 on a 1.6x sensor would make a lovely 'walking around' lens, something like 28 - 65, but it wont be a wide angle lens.
Click to expand...

I have the 17-40 and can say it's an outstanding lens. I had a kit 28-90 on my 400D and upgraded to the 17-40. It works very well as a wlak around lens but is much wider (obviously) than the 28-90. I find it's wide enough to be good for landscapes and even museums. I considered the 10-22 but thought it was maybe a bit too wide for what I was after.
I think maybe the question is, do you want a very good quality walk around with a wideish lower end OR a UWA for those really cool winde angle shots but lose out in the walk around focal lengths?

I took this in with the 17-40 on my 400D, it's quite wide. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andysolaini/3383846312/in/set-72157615778071527/

Andy S
 
Davec223 said:
if you are upgrading to full frame the sigma 10-20 willbe no good as it is a crop framme lens.


sorry miss read first post and thought you were asking abount 10-20 sigma when it was the cannon lrns, my mistake.
Click to expand...

actually the sigma 10-20 works fine on full frame, i've just tried it on my 1d. and the field of view is huuuuge......it vignettes at 10, so just turn it to 12mm and you're away. af works fine too.
 
john starkey said:
the reason i want uwa lens is for indoor pics like museums and stuff,and landscape pics.
Click to expand...

I used the 10-22mm on my 20D, its an interesting lens, its best results are achieved at the 10-15mm range, it starts to fall off in performance from 16-22mm, you would need to stop down (reduce aperture) to over come some of the slight problems with this lens, but it does give you a unique image similar too the fisheye lens.

As for indoors shots, you would need a tripod, this is not a fast lens and wouldn't give great results hand held, its outside for landscapes where this lens excels.

10-22mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

If you are wanting to do indoor photography, you would need a faster lens, something like a 24mm f1.4, however you have the problem of 1.6x crop factor of your 450D, which is a significant one for shooting wide angle.

A good compromise would be the 17-55mm f2.8 which is fast enough for indoor work and still wide enough for landscapes on your cropped body.

17-55mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

17-40mm
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top