« on: January 04, 2011, 12:45:15 PM »
I loved that lens for the time I owned it.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I used a 10-22mm on my 7D for about a year - and then switched to a 17-40mm L. While the angle of view of the 10-22mm is certainly dramatic, I found there to be too many image quality issues - small details were somehow indistinct, colors hard to work with, and the lens isn't very good if you want to include people in your shots. The 17-40mm L was very surprising for me - much sharper than expected, excellent detail, better color and contrast than the 10-22mm. I happily traded off the extra width for better image quality.I am sure you did, but you are going from what amounts to a 16-35mm (the 10-22) equivalent to a roughly 27-64mm so of course you traded those things -- but you lost an ultrawide. You could have gotten a 15-85 or a 17-55 and had the same thing. You are comparing apples to oranges and while it may have made perfect sense for you (few people can shoot people with an UW Zoom), you lost coverage and the whole reason to own an UW. If you could only afford one of those lenses then you did make the right choice.
Ok, I am a little perplexed. Why are we talking about the 16-35, 17-55, or even the 17-40 all of which are good 'standard' lenses when what he needed is an UW lens. In that category you have a limited number of choices ranging from the Canon 10-22, Sigmas, Tamron, and Tokinas that all cover a similar range. The OP does landscape photography so he needs wide. The bottom line is that the 10-22 is the best cropped sensor UW zoom of the bunch with the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 coming up next and the Tamron/Sigma being strong finishers. Depending on the lens you get, your quality will vary from lens to lens. The quality variation is less with the Canons.