Canon 10-22 vs Canon 17-40

[silversurfer96]

I am at a cross road and need some advice. Currently shooting with a 7D. I have the 24-105 and 70-200. Looking for my third len and was looking for a wide angle. Both the Canon 10-22 and 17-40 are at an incredible price at the moment. 10-22 at $649 and 17-40 at $705. I do plan going to FF in about two years. I was thinking of going with the 10-22 for now and when I do upgrade to 5DIII then sell it and get the 17-40. Or I can go with the 17-40 and be FF proof. Any comments/advice are greatly appreciated.
Thx.

 

[Hillsilly]

Personally, I'd opt for the 10-22. It's a significantly different focal length to your other lenses and will complement them well. It's a good, sharp lens and you can have a lot of fun with it. There is also a lot of interest in this lens on the second hand market. Its going to retain most of its value should you move to a 5Diii.

 

[Cbadie]

I have the Tokina 12-24 on a 30D and like the ultra wide perspective. Not sure you would get that with 17mm, but if you are sure about going FF soon the 17-40 would seem like a wise investment. If you are not sure then the 10-22 would make you quite happy.

 

[handsomerob]

+1 for 10-22mm. Just imagine how many shots you would miss in those 2 years because your lens was futureproof but not wide enough

10mm is significantly wider than 17mm. And it will be a better addition to your other lenses. The 17-40L would overlap with your the 24-105L from 24mm on so actually you'll be paying $700 for 7mm = $100 per mm

When you upgrade to FF, you can replace the 10-22mm with the 17-40L without much loss, if any at all... Decent lenses keep their value quite well.

 

[Loswr]

I'm a big proponent of getting the lenses best suited for the body you have. 17mm is wide angle on APS-C, but not ultrawide. Get the 10-22mm now, sell it if/when you go FF. That's what I did, at any rate. Liked the 10-22mm on my 7D, so after getting a 5DII, I got a 16-35mm f/2.8L II for equivalent focal length (and better IQ at wide apertures than the 17-40mm). After about a year of use, I sold the 10-22mm for $50 less than I paid (new, from Amazon), and that was before the recent price jumps - today, I'd have made a profit.

 

[dr croubie]

Another vote for the 10-22, and sell it if/when you upgrade. Don't forget, that upgrade might never happen, but if it does the 10-22 will keep its value.
Also consider the Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 8-16 as faster/wider alternatives respectively, but they probably won't hold up their value as much as the Canon lens will (or buy them 2nd-hand now).
Or even look at the Sigma 12-24 mk1 or mk2 (mk1 for minimal barrel distortion, mk2 for [centre] sharpness), that you can keep if/when you go Full Frame.
(Or if you really have the cash, and don't mind post-processing work, a ts-e 17mm can take nice parallax-free panoramae to stitch together later, not sure how 'wide' an equivalent lens it makes though)

But yeah, either way, the 17-40 is not really ultrawide on a crop-body, and not the sharpest either, a dedicated wide to ultra-wide is the way to go for now.

 

[willrobb]

I'd go with the 10-22 if you are on a 7D. The 17-40mm on the 7D really isn't that wide (about 28mm), so go as wide as you can now and cover more bases.

 

[DanoPhoto]

Another vote for the 10-22!!!


Follwed the solid advice from same posters above and am very pleases with the decision. Will retain value and fits the set-up I currently own.


You can get some really cool shots with the wider end of this lens. Circus fun house mirror type of stuff. Great with the kids and pets.

 

[awinphoto]

I had the sigma 10-20 (and 17-40) right up until I got the 5d2... then I sold it and maintain that perspective more or less with the 17 at FF... And when I sold it I pretty much sold my 5 year old lens for as much as I bought it.

 

[silversurfer96]

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts on my dilemma. I'd been following this site lately and realized that alot of people here have great insight into photography. Really appreciate the feedback. Happy shooting...

 

[briansquibb]

The 17-40 is a great lens - but on a crop it is a good kit lens.

For wa go 10-22

 

[iaind]

Go for10-22.

Used it on 40d. A great lens, still languishes in an old camera bag as I use 17-35L on full frame. You will not regret it

 

[tron]

hello,

I was in a similar situation a few years ago. I had the 40D and my widest lens was a 16-35mm f/2.8L (from the film days...). It was Summer 2008, the EOS 5D (version I) was about to be replaced (which actually did happen by the end of 2008) and I needed an Ultrawide Lens. So it was either a soon to be replaced 5D or a 10-22.

I got the 10-22 and was very happy with the results...

 

[danski0224]

Those 2 lenses are completely different.

The 17-40 or 16-35 is a nice all around lens on a crop camera.

I chose a Tokina 11-16 over the Canon 10-22.

Essentially, the 11-16/16-35/17-40 on a full frame is comparable to the 11-16/10-22 on a crop.

I would suggest both.

I am at a cross road and need some advice. Currently shooting with a 7D. I have the 24-105 and 70-200. Looking for my third len and was looking for a wide angle. Both the Canon 10-22 and 17-40 are at an incredible price at the moment. 10-22 at $649 and 17-40 at $705. I do plan going to FF in about two years. I was thinking of going with the 10-22 for now and when I do upgrade to 5DIII then sell it and get the 17-40. Or I can go with the 17-40 and be FF proof. Any comments/advice are greatly appreciated.
Thx.

 

[foobar]

+1 for the 10-22 on the 7D.
Keep it in good shape and sell/swap it for a 17-40 when you upgrade to FF.

The 17-40 on APS-C is more or less a "standard" zoom lens and won't give you much wide angle (~28mm equiv).
The 10-22 on APS-C is a completely different thing and will give you everything from ultra (~16mm equiv.) to moderate (~35mm equiv.) wide angle.

 

[Flake]

I wouldn't reccomend the 17 - 40mm L to anyone despite owning one! Of all of the lenses which show Canons inability to compete in the FF wide angle market the 17 - 40mm is the prime example.

At 17mm wide open there is no measurable resolution at all in the corners. Shots of brick walls will show the detail of the bricks simply fade away to a red blur. There's significant distortion and issues with vignetting making this a lens which you can only get acceptable results from at f/8 onward.

I you want an ultra wide lens then I suggest you look at Sigmas 8 - 16mm which was rated as excellent by photozone, but is an EFs. The drawback with any of these lenses is that you cannot use filters with them.

If you want a wide angle for FF then I'm afraid you're going to have to choose a prime lens if you want decent performance, even the 16 - 35mm f/2.8 L isn't fantastic.

Roll on the day Canon learn how to make a wide angle for FF which performs as well as Nikons 14 - 24mm f/2.8 which you can actually use with an adaptor, as many have been forced to do.

 

[candyman]

Also consider the Tokina 11-16 and Sigma 8-16 as faster/wider alternatives respectively, but they probably won't hold up their value as much as the Canon lens will (or buy them 2nd-hand now).

Maybe....I am not sure about that. When I bought my Tokina 11-16 about 1.5 year ago it cost me new about 505 euro. Even now with the holidays this lens cost currently around 580 euro.
The current new price is of influence on the value of the lens when you want to sell it.

 

[Cosk]

I own both... I bought the 10-22 first, then the 17-40 (when it was on sale)... then upgraded to FF and will soon sell my 10-22.

Both are great lenses - that's the upgrade path I followed, and it served me well.