EF-S 10-22mm vs 17-40mm f4L

[toiletliterature]

Oh my goodness. I can't decide which one to get to cover wide. I really like the wide-ness you get on the 10 BUT! I'm afraid of upgrading to FF, its not L and the range is not sufficient for a walkaround. What do you guys think? The extra 7 mm there would make alot of difference right?

[Russ]

If you really need it wide then get the 10-22. If you upgrade later, you can always sell it. Presently, a mint one should fetch about 950 - you lose $200. 17 is not very wide (27mm on FF or film).

The 10-22 is not L but it performs like one - EFS lenses are never called Ls even if the price is similar with similar types of elements - an EF-S 17-55 / 2.8 costs $1800 not much less than a 24-105L 4.0 or a 24-70L 2.8.

[user12343]

if i rem correctly the EFS 10-22 lens mount is not compatible with 1.0x FF or 1.3x, only compatible with 1.6x bodies. meaning u'll never get 10mm ultra WA with a FF body. with a 1.6x body, you'll be only getting 16mm at best with the EFS.

the 17-40L is an EF mount, meaning u can use on 1.6x, 1.3x and 1.0x cam bodies.

someone had posted a similar thread here, so i tink it might be useful for u.
so take ur pick

does it really matter if its L or non-L? does L optics guarantee good pics while non-L optics produces lousy pics?

Originally Posted by toiletliterature Oh my goodness. I can't decide which one to get to cover wide. I really like the wide-ness you get on the 10 BUT! I'm afraid of upgrading to FF, its not L and the range is not sufficient for a walkaround. What do you guys think? The extra 7 mm there would make alot of difference right?

[toiletliterature]

But what about resale value? Apparently Ls fetch better resale value. I dunno, i'm biased towards the 17-40 but just afraid of it being too long (was actually considering the 16-35 but not much writeup on that)

[user12343]

there's writeup on the 16-35 if u can take a little time to go thru this canon subfolder

[toiletliterature]

Ahhh read it already. Thanks user12343! =) Guess the 17-40 is more for me. Even though i'm very motivated by the 16-35 shots used for the 30D brochure. haha

[user12343]

[toiletliterature]

Seriously. I wonder if the extra stop is worht the extra 1.1k. Anyone?

AND! I dont want to use the kit. But i need a bangaround lens. Anyone recommend anything?

[jsbn]

The kit lens is as good as a 'bang around lens' covering from medium wide to standard range my friend. Why u dun wanna use the kit lens?

Bad reviews? Hear from someone? Gotten seriously bad pictures out of it? Ls and highly rated EF-Ses ain't magic potions to turn ur photos into commercial/fine-art quality standard instantly.

[Canew]

toiletliterature, here are some comparison photos for you. All photos were resized and levels slightly adjusted. No USM was done.

1.





2.




3.




4.

[toiletliterature]

Canew thanks!