16-35/FF or 10-22/APSC

[Sabaki]

I've read a good few reviews stating the high quality of the EF-S 10-22mm and these reviews generally include a direct comparison to the EF 16-35mm II.

Sure, the edge definitely goes to the 16-35 but by the smallest margins.

Since the D800 launched a few years back, it has become apparent that shooting landscapes has more to do with lens/body combinations than just the qualities of the lens.

So my question; head-to-head, some reviews say the 16-35 is marginally superior to the 10-22 but I'd like to know how much better a 5D mkIII mounted 16-35 compares to say a 70D mounted 10-22 for landscape photography.

Thanks for any feedback folks

 

[mb66energy]

For your intentions I would prefer the FF-Option; if maximum quality is relevant. I am sticking around with APS-C and see an advantage in the 10-22 as allround lens: less distortion (video, architecture) & compact & lightweight & acceptable flare resistance.

Best - Michael

IMO a very good starting point: comparing lenses via The Digital Picture!

f/8 & 16mm (equiv):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

f/8 & 35mm (equiv):
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=271&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=412&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4

 

[Loswr]

I used a 10-22 on a 7D, after getting the 16-35L II for my 5DII, I sold the 10-22...