Canon 17-40 or 10-22?

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:34 pm

I'm about to purchase a wide angle lens and will be going with Canon. The lens is for my 20D so I am working with a crop factor.

I've been watching the price of the EF-S 10-22 at B&H. It has now dropped from $799 to $739. Guess it is just the typical price drop.

The EF 17-40L is priced at $679.

Is the quality of the "L" lens better so much so that I should not buy the wider 10-22?

Joined: 18 Jun 2004 Posts: 436

The quality of the glass goes to the 17-40, though not by a large margin. I had the 17-40 and wound up selling it to get the 10-22, just because I found 17 too limiting with a 1.6x crop for a wide angle lens.

Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:23 am

Thanks for the comment. Guess my only concern now is the longevity of the EF-S series of lenses. That being, when will Canon no longer produce bodies that will accept the EF-S mount.

Joined: 18 Jun 2004 Posts: 436

sselph wrote:

Thanks for the comment. Guess my only concern now is the longevity of the EF-S series of lenses. That being, when will Canon no longer produce bodies that will accept the EF-S mount.

EF.S will be around for years. And if you decide to upgrade to full frame, just sell the EF/S lenses with the 20D or else keep the 20D as a backup and use the lenses on it.

Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:01 pm

Yeah, I don't think the quality of the 17-40L is so spectacular that it would be worth ignoring the other options. It looks like a sweet lens but I honestly think the price is because it's the only full-frame ultra wide zoom canon makes. I think it's sort of wasted on a 1.6 crop body. That said, if you want to also shoot film from time to time its probably a good lens to have.

Joined: 18 Jun 2004 Posts: 436

walter23 wrote:

Yeah, I don't think the quality of the 17-40L is so spectacular that it would be worth ignoring the other options. It looks like a sweet lens but I honestly think the price is because it's the only full-frame ultra wide zoom canon makes.

Someone is forgetting the 16-35L...

Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:40 pm

RikWriter wrote:

walter23 wrote:

Yeah, I don't think the quality of the 17-40L is so spectacular that it would be worth ignoring the other options. It looks like a sweet lens but I honestly think the price is because it's the only full-frame ultra wide zoom canon makes.

Someone is forgetting the 16-35L...

Heh, I always forget about it because it's 100% unlikely that I will buy it anytime in the next 5 years. The 17-40L is an expensive temptation - the 16-35 f/2.8 sits in the same category as the 1Ds II - totally beyond my means and commitment. Anyway the same arguments apply, only add the cost of an extra stop of brightness to the mix.

Premium Member Joined: 29 Oct 2004 Posts: 5758

The 10-22 is multi-coated glass that approaches L-quality from what I've heard. The presence or absence of the letter L unto itself means nothing without reviews and experience. The 10-22 is leaps and bounds better than the entry level Canon lenses.

The 10-22 (like all super wide angles) is soft at the edges, even when stopped down a bit, but that's unavoidable on a lens with a 107 degree angle of view.

You've got to make this decision based on one thing alone -- do you need a regular wide angle (like the 16 or 17mm lenses), or do you need a super wide? Part of that decision must come from what lenses you already have. There are certainly things you can do with a 10-22 (or the 11 and 12mm third party lenses) that you can't do with a 17mm lens.

walter23 wrote:

the 16-35 f/2.8 sits in the same category as the 1Ds II - totally beyond my means and commitment. Anyway the same arguments apply, only add the cost of an extra stop of brightness to the mix

I covet this lens, but I think the extra stop of brightness is not its advantage. Taking a portrait with an f/2.8 is completely different than with an f/4.0, all else being equal. Especially at these short focal lengths the depth of field is very big compared with the standard portrait focal lengths (i.e. the 70-100). You really need the 2.8 to blur the background at a small focal length (as I discovered when I chucked the kit lens and started using the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8). The stop of brightness I'll give or take, but the depth of field is both what makes the 16-35 expensive and what makes it a class above the 17-40. What I REALLY covet for this reason are the pro-level low low f/stop primes, like the 35 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.2, but I haven't made my billions yet.

I DO agree, though, that the money one spends really has to do with not just monetary but also personal investment. There's a certain level above which differences in quality are barely noticible, and for young enthusiasts, for whom buying camera equipment is an addition to a hobby rather than a professional investment, there should be forthright advice about some of the excellent equipment out there that doesn't cost you one of your kidneys.

Posted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:55 pm

drpablo74 wrote:

You've got to make this decision based on one thing alone -- do you need a regular wide angle (like the 16 or 17mm lenses), or do you need a super wide? Part of that decision must come from what lenses you already have. There are certainly things you can do with a 10-22 (or the 11 and 12mm third party lenses) that you can't do with a 17mm lens.

You've put it into terms that helped me make my decision. I need/want the super wide angle, especially since I've got a crop factor on the 20D. My current widest is a 28, which is not nearly wide enough on a less than full frame sensor.

Thanks to all for the input.