Amazon Music Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!
BEST LENS: Canon 17-40mm vs Canon 10-22mm
I never knew there was differences in quality within the L range. I always assumed they were built to the same high specifications - water / dust seals etc. I had assumed the f4 range was just lighter (for those who want lighter glass, without sacrificing quality). And at f4 don't require so much glass and therefore cheaper. I had assumed the quality was the same. Good job you're back CB to educate us all.
This has been discussed in the past and I think most agreed that a lot of the extra you pay for the likes of L lenses is build quality. For most hobbyists, who tend to treat photographic equipment as if they are delicate jewellery, the higher build quality is somewhat academic!
No matter how careful you are, accidents will happen. Build quality not only means a more robust bit of kit, it also means a more enjoyable tactile experience in taking photos.
Sorry guys. I totally forgot to mention that I currently have a Canon 20D but am toying with the idea of getting the new 5D when it comes out. Now, I know the 10-22mm won't fit on the 5D & also that the 8.25mpixels with it's X1.6 cropping factor will be much different than the FF, 12.8 mpixel sensor of the 5D. Now, no matter what camera I choose to stay with, I am going to get the 24-105mm when it becomes available.
Currently, I'm thinking of staying with the 20D & getting the 10-22mm lens because I don't believe that I'll be making any prints larger than 11x14 (or 16x20 at a max.) Staying within those boundaries, is where I was trying to compare the 10-22mm with the 17-40mm in a qualitative match. Now at that print size, would I see a difference between the two systems with the old MK 1 eyeball (in quality of image)??
I guess it all comes down to comparing the 5D with it's high cost (US $3500) vs the 20D that I already own. Kind of makes you want to go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Currently, I'm thinking of staying with the 20D & getting the 10-22mm lens because I don't believe that I'll be making any prints larger than 11x14 (or 16x20 at a max.) Staying within those boundaries, is where I was trying to compare the 10-22mm with the 17-40mm in a qualitative match. Now at that print size, would I see a difference between the two systems with the old MK 1 eyeball (in quality of image)??
I guess it all comes down to comparing the 5D with it's high cost (US $3500) vs the 20D that I already own. Kind of makes you want to go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
If staying with the 20D I would consider the 17-85efs lens. I have a 10D with 16-35 and a 28-135 and find that what ever lens I have on is always the wrong length so I am constantly swapping. A 17-85 would be bliss (wont fit the 10D). This onw of the reasons I am seriously considering an upgrade to 5D.
cheers
Al.
cheers
Al.
I have the 10-22mm and 17-85mm lens, both of which are very good, if you put them again the L series glassware then the L series glassware is better. Given the choice go with L-series but the other lenses will still perform very well
edit: all except the 18-55 which redefines the definition of crap (imo)
edit: all except the 18-55 which redefines the definition of crap (imo)
)
If you want to go FF, then go for the L. If you don't then go EF-S because at least it's a true superwide on the 20D.
CB / Ian - care to give some examples of differences in quality of 'L' lenses? I own a fair few and played with many more and found the quality to be pretty high and consistent. I do have a problem with one lens, but it's old and has been superseded. And what exactly do you mean by quality? Are you referring to build or results? I'm thinking of getting a couple more and I wouldn't want to get an inferior 'L'.
Any more takers?
I have the 10-22 and love it. Well, I did until I dropped it. Fair enough, last time I dropped it onto tarmac from the rucksack it bounced with no harm done. This time however it didn't. Still works, but can only go as wide as 14mm and the AF is not working. I'm wondering if an L lens would have held up better. Maybe not, but possibly.
The only problem is that 99% of the time I used the 10-22 wider than 16mm, so there is no alternative zoom lens in the Canon range. In fact the only rectilinear lens alternative is the 14mm prime which though nice is a little expensive.
The only problem is that 99% of the time I used the 10-22 wider than 16mm, so there is no alternative zoom lens in the Canon range. In fact the only rectilinear lens alternative is the 14mm prime which though nice is a little expensive.
