17-40 L or 10-22? Help!

[Ploddy]

OK, so I'm turning myself in circles on this one.

As you can see from my signature, I am blessed with some pretty sweet kit, which includes 2 L series lenses to cover 24mm to 200mm. I am currently sitting on a Sigma 17-70 (older, non OS version) for my wide stuff. Whilst I dont shoot wide very often (mainly portrait work) I DO shoot indoors often, and I am finding that I need to go to the Sigma too much to get those cramped room shots.

I love my 7D, but I know one day I am going to take the plunge and get a FF (probably keeping the 7D as a backup). I am completely fastidious about care of my lenses, so I have invested in L glass that I expect will see me into the FF era when the day comes.

So what to do? The two options that spring to mind are the 17-40L and 10-22, each have their strengths and weaknesses (and I will never be able to afford the 16-35 so dont go there ).

Pro's for the 17-40 are its build and lens quality (generally speaking, I know it is a bit disappointing at 17mm), plus it gives me a bit of reach when I need it, without swapping (I like a bit of overlap on my lens reach). Plus it is EF so it will suit the FF one day. But he 10-22 is so well regarded, but not as solid in build, and probably too wide for what I need really. Yes, I could sell it when the time comes too.

But it worries me that the 17-40 is so old a model and I may be buying for the future rather than now.

I dont do landscapes, it's pretty much for people / architecture stuff, often indoors, with a speedlight. As an example, I am shooting a wedding at a registry in November and want something by then. Small area, not much room to move.

Any ideas? Anyone owned both on a crop body and can share their thoughts?

Any help would be appreciated.

[jjphoto]

...Pro's for the 17-40 are its build and lens quality (generally speaking, I know it is a bit disappointing at 17mm), plus it gives me a bit of reach when I need it, without swapping (I like a bit of overlap on my lens reach). Plus it is EF so it will suit the FF one day. ....

It's fairly good at 17mm, especially when stopped down toF11, but there is softness at the edges on a full frame body. It's flare resistance is astounding! Astounding!

... But he 10-22 is so well regarded, but not as solid in build, and probably too wide for what I need really. Yes, I could sell it when the time comes too.

...

I've had 2 of the 10-22 and they where both poor performers. The 17-40L is a much sharper/better lens in virtually every way.

...But it worries me that the 17-40 is so old a model and I may be buying for the future rather than now.

...

It came out in 2003. That's not old. I use some lenses that are 20-25 years old because they are optically superior to many modern lenses. Forget about age as an argument or factor. It's a red herring.

..Any ideas? Anyone owned both on a crop body and can share their thoughts?

Any help would be appreciated.

I have both. I use the 10-22 on a crop body and pretty much hate it but I use it because I need the wide angle of view. The 17-40 is definitely a sharper lens and any issues with edge performance are only relevant on FF bodies anyway.

Sure, you could buy a grey 10-22 and sell it for little loss in the future. If the 17-40 angle of view suits you better than have no hesitation buying it, it won't dissapoint. In fact, you will have trouble finding lenses that out perform it in each of it's focal lengths. 17mm is a difficult focal length even for primes. It is actually a very sharp lens. It's about as sharp at 24mm as my Leica R 24/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8 L which are both excellent lenses

JJ

[andylo]

I had the 10-22 and now own a 17-40L.

My copy of 10-22 USM was actually very good. Sharp across the frame and color rendering was great! The barrel distortion on the short end is heavy but easily can be corrected in PS CS5, or Lightroom 3.

The reason I get a 17-40L is because I have upgraded to 1DMkIII, which doesn't take EF-S lens.

I actually make $50 when I sold my 10-22mm.

My personal experience between the 10-22 and 17-40L, is the 17-40L is not sharper than the 10-22 (and vice versa), but the color rendering is slightly better with the L lens. And don't forget the 17-40L is weather proof (after filter installed) so I can continue shooting with my 1D & 17-40L if started to rain. (But wouldn't risk it when I was using 500D + 10-22mm USM)

Having say that, I do miss the extra mm on the wide end.

17-40L IMO doesn't give you a lot of advantage on a 1.6x crop body when doing landscape. And if you are not going to upgrade to FF anytime soon (i.e. not in the next 365 days) go for the 10-22 USM 1st.

And when you get into FF, maybe you want to try better UWA lens like the 16-35II L, 14mm II L, or the TS-E 17mm/24mm II

[Bandit4000]

I was about to buy the 10-22 but the guys at CameraPro recommended the Tokina 11-16 f2.8, and i have to admit the thing is brilliant, give it a try.
Mark

[fabian628]

for your need I would buy 10-22. I gather from the post the only reason you feel an upgrade is needed is you need wider and the 17-40 is not any wider than your current lens.
Comparing both I found optically no real difference, maybe even the 10-22 better. In terms of build quality, if you do something to break the 10-22, most likely the 17-40 will be busted too. The build is not that bad, maybe people think it is not built so well becuase it is a very light lens. The 17-40 is not that much heavier though.

I only bought the 17-40 when I had no more 1.6x crop bodies, 10-22 was a reluctant sale

[dulvariprestige]

Have you thought about the tokina 11-16 2.8, this could suit your indoor needs, I just sold my 10-22 as I was planning on adding a 5dMKII, but the day after it sold, things did a 180 and the 5d was no longer an option, for a while anyway, so I needed another UWA for the 7d, so I thought I'd give the tokina 11-16 a go, and I have to say, while my canon was good, the tokina is that little better again, and having 2.8 can come in handy.
The tokina's focusing is slower than the canon's, but with such a short distance between MFD and infinity, it doesn't seem to matter, and for the price of tokina, if you do need to sell it, you won't lose much.

[Old Skool]

I had the 17-40L but sold it as zoom range too small and if your using it for people shots it's not the best due to distortion at the wide end. Your 17-70 covers this range anyway. I have the 10-22 and on a crop body it's a great wide angle lens with quality the same as the 17-40L IMO. It is also good for buildings etc.

[Ploddy]

Well, what a mixture in opinion! This is exactly why I have been in a state of flux. Dropping a grand on either of these lenses is a big deal for me, so I need to get it right - to that end I value each and every comment.

At the end of the day, future-proofing with build quality and A grade glass is more important than the extra width. For that reason I'm going to go with the 17-40. If I need UWA down the track, before I go FF, then I'll reassess at the time.

Thanks everyone for the comments - I really do appreciate it.

[Old Skool]

In that case, save money and track down an older Tamron SP 17-35 F2.8-4. I reckon its better than the 17-40L, super sharp and beautiful colour - and cheap.

[tarwoona]

I have just bought a 10-22 and it seems pretty good to me, also i havent used the 17-40.

But something i did find when searching for a good 'local' price for the 10-22 was that secondhand lens were not too much cheaper than the new price. I'd suggest you buy the 10-22 as it will give you a much broader range now and when the FF comes along you can sell it at not a huge loss or keep it on your 7D.

[Tricky]

The 10-22 is an excellent lens and at least on par optically with the 17-40. JJPhoto has clearly had an adverse experience with the 10-22 but I really do believe that is an exception. The 10-22 is generally considered to have near L-quality glass, though the build quality is not L-class. The 17-40 is great value for money, but on full frame is a bit soft in the corners.

When I moved to full frame, I was sad to have to replace my 10-22... but I sold it for almost what I paid for it.

As an alternative, you should try the Tokina 11-16mm referred to by Jayde - I had the Tokina 11-17mm fisheye and it was excellent. The 11-16mm has an excellent reputation.

[dulvariprestige]

What about the tokina 16-28 2.8, It's a FF lens, no filters though.

[jafin]

At the end of the day, future-proofing with build quality and A grade glass is more important than the extra width. For that reason I'm going to go with the 17-40. If I need UWA down the track, before I go FF, then I'll reassess at the time.

Thanks everyone for the comments - I really do appreciate it.

I hope you enjoy it, I haven't experied any of the other lens the thread has discussed but the 17-40 was my second lens, and I absolutely love it for landscape, but have equally had fun indoors shooting kids parties..

[enduro]

I don't own the lenses you are asking about but do own the 17-70mm (older like yours) and the Siggy 10-20mm and couldn't fault either for wide shots or landscape. My older 17-70mm could be better for faster AF, but I have had no feedback from the speed of the newer model to consider upgrading,

I have seen detailed images from the 17-70mm and the 17-40mm and photographers and I see very little difference. The 10-20 and 10-22mm are similar in comparison and I understand the latter has shorter MFD but poorer corner image quality. Unless one wants to pay several thousand dollars for an ultrawide, we will get soft edges, that's part of photography and the eye too.

When shooting ultra-wide I keep elements that are very close out of the frame thereby eliminating or lessening distortions.

[carrg1954]

If you are going FF eventually, then the 10-22 is not for you, its an ef-s mount.

[Captured frame]

Have used the 17-40 f4L for 3 years now and it has never let me down,have mainly used on a 5D/5DII and it has never let me down yet,yes can be slightly soft on ff at 17mm but up from there it is sharp as a tack. It would be one of the best value "L" lenses you can buy.I mainly use it for landscape work ,but also love using it as an occasional walk around lens in the city.

[William W]

OK, so I'm turning myself in circles on this one.

Not sure why you are running around in circles as you seem to answer your questions, in your OP:
 you want the reach of the 17 to 40 yet don’t need to the wide of the 10 to 22;
 you are concerned about the 17mm end IQ, but you will be using it on a 7D and therefore using only the centre of the image circle;
 you know that you will one day get a FF camera, but the supposed fragile IQ of the 17mm end will not matter, because you don’t want that wide anyway;
 you are concerned that the 17 to 40 is so good, that the design hasn’t changed since it was introduced in about 7 years ago . . .
 you like the good build and the L Label on the 17 to 40, yet the 10 to 22 is a lewsser quality IYO

It seems to me a no brainer - go buy the 17 to 40.

WW

[Ploddy]

See, I like it when someone comes along and points out what's right in front of my nose, but I still cant see

You are right, the answers were there all along. Sometimes it takes others to make you see it. That's what friends are for

[William W]

WW

BTW, reading the whole thread, JJ mentioned much the same as me, but perhaps I was just more direct.