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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Scarlet Fever, Jul 20, 2008.

  1. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #1
    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?
     
  2. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #2
    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.
     
  3. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #3
    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. ;)
     
  4. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    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.
     
  5. JNB macrumors 604

    JNB

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    In a Hell predominately of my own making
    #5
    For an idea of what the 10-22 gives you on the wider end (on a XT body):

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG] [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Scarlet Fever thread starter macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #6
    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.
     
  7. R.Youden macrumors 68020

    R.Youden

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    #7
    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.
     
  8. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #8
    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.
     
  9. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #9
    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.
     
  10. invoke macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    #10
    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.
     

Share This Page