Yep, I know there’s been lots of post on these two. Yet, since there’s not much new equipment announcements to make us quarrel lately, thanks to the community to kindly share the experience.
I still have the 10-22 to use on 60D. It’s sharp, yes. And I know lots of people swear by it. Personal opinion here, I find the pictures to be dull somehow, lacking depth or texture. So, imo and in short, 10-22 is certainly very capable but has no mojo !
For me, lenses like 35L or 85/II have mojo. Lot of it. Wow effet. Beyond words. With these two guys, I sometimes happen, with all settings to zero, to just convert to jpeg without any adjustment. In prints, the oomph effect is even more obvious than with pictures viewed on comp screens (downsized to 2 MB isn’t it).
Now, tried to love it but I’m going to sell the 10-22. So the question is, for 5D3, 17-40 or 16-35 ? Been reading every possible review, understand the pros and cons of each but I’m still wondering which one has the mojo – if one has any. It’s not for the 600 buck difference. It’s just no-nonsense decision. In reviews, it’s all about sharpness. There’s some on distortion and CA but that’s about it. Most conclude that if you don’t need the extra stop for low light, the extra mil and do mainly landscape at f8+, they both deliver the same result. I can read charts and can conclude that by myself, thank you. No word on the wow effect. No word on the lens mojo ! And you never know by how much, pictures seen on the net have been touched- up or altered.
So, will someone having or having used both lenses kindly share the experience and give advice/opinion on this delicate mojo subject, with some pics if possible ? I’d be delighted to be enlighted.