Canon 17-40 f/4 L vs Canon 10-22

I have the 17/40 and it'd take a very beautiful and very naked lady to take it off me :)
 
I ask as i got the choice from my wife and i chose the 10-22 hope i dont regret it
 
well looking at the other lenses in your sig list it's probably for the best as it'd fill the wide end of the range for you.

Your 10-22 on the 400D is going to give you an equivalent FOV as a 16-35 on a full frame body.....for me thats just about the same as the 17-40 on the 5d :D
 
Ray,

The Sigma 10-20 is as sharp as the Canon 17-40L and is considerably cheaper than the Canon 10-20. It really depends on what are you intending photographing?

Brian means that on your 400d it has a crop factor of x1.6 so you multiply the lens focal length , say 10mm x 1.6 =16mm giving you the true focal length you are using.
 
dcash29 said:
Ray,

The Sigma 10-20 is as sharp as the Canon 17-40L and is considerably cheaper than the Canon 10-20. It really depends on what are you intending photographing?

Ray means that on your 400d it has a crop factor of x1.6 so you multiply the lens focal length , say 10mm x 1.6 =16mm giving you the true focal length you are using.
Click to expand...
Ok thanks dcash its just that as a novice this is complicated to me i dont mean to be funny...Ray:)
 
The differences between those two lenses are:

1) Sharpness and quality - MUCH better on the 17-40. It's L glass so very very high quality, it's a professional grade lens.
2) Build quality. The 17-40 is made of metal, the 10-22 is made of plasic. It's much stronger. Also weather sealed if you get a UV filter for it (dosen't make it waterproof, but you could drop it into a puddle and it would be fine, or if, say, someone split a drink all over it like someone did to mine the other night).
3) the 10-22 is an EF-S not EF lens which means you can't use it on full-frame bodies (not a big problem as you want it for a 400D, but perhaps in the future it would be annoying to replace).

I have a 17-40 L and absolutely love it. I had a 28-135mm and L seris lenses are worth the money on build quality alone!

Of course it's more expensive, a 17-40 will set you back around £400, but it's definatly worth it. The 400D can make good use of higher quality lenses aswel, as it has that 10.1MP sensor.
 
I just think there are alot of alternatives to the 17-40 (with a bit of mm give either side) but the 10-22 is one of only a couple of alternatives.
Thinking like that, i would go for the 10-22.
 
dcash29 said:
Ray,

The Sigma 10-20 is as sharp as the Canon 17-40L and is considerably cheaper than the Canon 10-20. It really depends on what are you intending photographing?

Brian means that on your 400d it has a crop factor of x1.6 so you multiply the lens focal length , say 10mm x 1.6 =16mm giving you the true focal length you are using.
Click to expand...

I hesitate to open a debate on this again, but the focal length is still 10mm whatever the size of the sensor. it is the field of view that is cropped, not the focal length extended.

Ray - both lenses are excellent and the Sigma is a worthy alternative. As DF says (though i bet he hasn't actually used it yet :D) the 17-40 is a perfect match with full frame bodies and is by far the better build quality (incl weather sealing). Both the 10-22 and the 10-20 are built specifically for crop sensors (and will not fit on 35mm or 'FF' bodies) whereas the 17-40 fits both types and is marginally faster throughout, though on your camera the fov will be restricted to the angle associated with a 27mm lens.

You made a good choice (y)
 
Jonny

The 17-40 is actually the oldest thing in my kitbag now, it's seen me through 300d,20d and almost a year of 5d

Thats all of 3 pictures :D
 
The slight downside to the 10-22 is that it suffers a little bit from CA high contrast situations but if that's not in your shooting style then it's nothing to worry about.

Bob
 
Surely it depends on what camera you have and what you intend to use it for.

As he's considering the 10-22 he must have a cropped not full frame camera.

So then it's what you need it for. The 17-40 would be one choice as an excellant replacement for the kit lens, but wouldn't be wide enough for really wide shots, but on a full frame camera it would be perfect.

I've got the 10-22 and had the opportunity to buy that or the sigma at around the same price. For me, the Canon lens focussed slightly quicker, was 1/3 stop quicker and I'll admit had the Canon name. I couldn't really spot a difference on image quality.
 
digitalfailure said:
Jonny

The 17-40 is actually the oldest thing in my kitbag now, it's seen me through 300d,20d and almost a year of 5d

Thats all of 3 pictures :D
Click to expand...

In the immortal words of Busterboy; this thread is useless without pictures.

:LOL:
 
dod said:
Two of which were deleted in the camera ;)
Click to expand...

And the other one was OOF at 100% crop in lightroom :D

Coming back to the original question, assuming you want a truly wide angle on a APS-C sensor camera the 10-22 is the only way to go. Yes it won't work on a full frame camera, but there is no other ultra wide solution for a APS-C camera!

You've done it now, but anyway you just have to accept that upgrading to a FF body will mean that leans goes in the bin, as opposed to the 17-40L which will mean you don't get the lens you want today...

Got to be a bit obvious no?
 
17-40 for me. (y) L glass, handles well and has given me some superb results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top