Save 60% On inPixio Eclipse HDR Pro

BEST LENS: Canon 17-40mm vs Canon 10-22mm


gipperdog 17 152
13 Sep 2005 10:19AM
Not to compare the EF-S vs EF lens system but simply comparing the 10-22mm to the 17-40mm in image quality & build quality. Which is better? Which makes more sense in getting for landscapes?
What's your opinion?
Carabosse 17 41.5k 270 England
13 Sep 2005 10:25AM
I don't think you can compare them: they are very different focal ranges!
Westers 16 3.9k 1 Burkina Faso
13 Sep 2005 10:50AM
Agree with CB that you're not comparing apples with apples. Both will do landscapes but you'd buy them for different reasons. Quality wise they're both meant to be very good - the 17-40 may be L glass but I think it is a cheaper L glass than say the 16-35.

If you've got an APS sized sensor DSLR and want a true 16mm lens then the 10-22 is the choice. If you think you might upgrade in the future to a full frame sensor then the 17-40 may be the better choice - it'll still give you a wide angle of view on an APS DSLR.

So, depends on where you see yourself in the future.
Just Jas Plus
19 26.3k 1 England
13 Sep 2005 11:06AM
Well, I don't see myself with a full frame size sensor at anytime. The 300D does what I want admirably.

However, my 20-35mm EF lens whilst OK on my 300V (which is why I bought it in the first place) it isn't wide enough on the 300D.

The 10-22mm would cover the range on my 300D with a bit in hand. The question that I would ask is how good is it in respect of geometric distortion? I would use it mainly for building interiors and shots of machinery in tight spaces.

PS, PSP8 and the like are OK for 'correcting' such distortions but the minimum distortion to correct the better.

Particularly at the price of the lenses, and with no resultant income planned from the investment.

jas
Carabosse 17 41.5k 270 England
13 Sep 2005 11:19AM
The reviews of the 10-22mm have generally been pretty enthusiastic - probably the most favourable of any EF-S lens.
keithh 17 25.7k 33 Wallis And Futuna
13 Sep 2005 11:26AM
which is better - the 17/40 - but they are very different lenses.
elowes 16 2.8k United Kingdom
13 Sep 2005 1:34PM
Didn't know there was such a thing as cheaper L glass, learn something every day. I just thought it was the angle of view, aperture and IS that made the difference between L lenses?

As I understand Canon lenses and the reviews read the L series are better quality than the EF-S but most of us would never notice the difference.

If you are serious about landscape you would know the lens you want for the type of shot you like to take, it's either equivilent to 16mm or 27mm.

Don't forget, not all landscape photography needs ultra wide.
MeanGreeny 15 3.7k England
13 Sep 2005 1:54PM
On a 300D [which it was designed for] the 10-22mm is a 16-35mm.
On a non EF-S camera the 17-40mm is just that.

i.e. I think you can make a comparison.

Can the Mk1 eyeball tell the difference? - I doubt it, despite what the high priests of either lens camp in here say.

If there was - there wouldn't be only a 45 difference in price.

Going back to your original statement, I think the one area you can make a decision to buy or not is on the strength of whether you want an EF-S lens or not.
deathraceking 17 578
13 Sep 2005 2:10PM

Quote:I think the one area you can make a decision to buy or not is on the strength of whether you want an EF-S lens or not.


...or whether you want wwiiddee or not on a 300D Wink Westers got it right, depends if you plan to go to EF only mount i.e. full frame digi or (hushed tone) film.

I have a 10-22, used it a fair amount and have no gripes. My 24-70L is by far a better lens, but the 10-22 can hold its own (arf arf). IMHO its a good 'un. If you are happy with the angle of view from the 18-55 kit lens then get the 17-40, but for real wide angle get the 10-22. HTH.
ahollowa 17 1.1k England
13 Sep 2005 2:11PM

Quote:On a non EF-S camera the 17-40mm is just that.

On a same aspect camera the lenses are different. The question was aimed at an EFS camera therefore the EFL of the 17-40 would be 28-64 on your 300D therefore as has been mentioned they are different lenses. If the question is can you compare a 10-22 on a crop with a 17-40 on a FF then the answer is no because the camera would have more effect.

cheers

Al.
Carabosse 17 41.5k 270 England
13 Sep 2005 2:49PM

Quote:I have a 10-22, used it a fair amount and have no gripes. My 24-70L is by far a better lens


Lol!! The 24-70 is also a totally different focal range and costs about twice as much as the 10-22!! Grin
Just Jas Plus
19 26.3k 1 England
13 Sep 2005 4:10PM
My choice would be the 10-22mm lens but as, unfortunately, I cannot afford either, the question is academic!

jas
deathraceking 17 578
14 Sep 2005 1:12AM

Quote:Lol!! The 24-70 is also a totally different focal range and costs about twice as much as the 10-22!!


No sh!t, CB, I'm sure nobody noticed thanks for pointing that out.

I was making the distinction in quality between L and non-L glass, not a comparison of the 24-70 to 10-22...so LOL@U Smile
Carabosse 17 41.5k 270 England
14 Sep 2005 5:20AM

Quote:I was making the distinction in quality between L and non-L glass


There are differences in quality even within the L glass range and the 17-40, which is the subject of this thread, is considered towards the bottom of that range. I doubt most users would see qualitative difference between the the 17-40 and the 10-22.

Oh, BTW, my BMW is better than my neighbour's Ford Mondeo. Oh damn, I forgot, he paid only half as much as I did! ;-(

LMAO!! Grin
digicammad 17 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
14 Sep 2005 5:29AM
Nice to see you haven't lost your touch CB.

;0)

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.