EF 17-40/f4L or EFS 10-22

[tristram]

hi, I am a newbie and would like to get advice on which of these two lens to buy for landscape. Thanks!

[Hoky]

Originally Posted by tristram hi, I am a newbie and would like to get advice on which of these two lens to buy for landscape. Thanks!

I have the EFS 10-22. Great lens and perspective at 10mm.
The 17-40L is more popular though as it's compatible with FF / film cameras. I have a mid range walkabout that covers 24mm ~ 70mm so I didn't opt for the 17-40L.

Depending on your requirements, both Canon are great lens with nice and sharp pictures.

[panzerpunk]

What camera are you using?

[cherkel]

17-40 give u an angle of 104
10-22 give u an angle of 107

don't forget about the crop time from ur cam.Canon don't come out with EFS lens for no reason...

without saying,for sure..'L' lens is better than normal lens

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by cherkel 17-40 give u an angle of 104 10-22 give u an angle of 107 don't forget about the crop time from ur cam.Canon don't come out with EFS lens for no reason... without saying,for sure..'L' lens is better than normal lens

I think this is confusing. What you left out which is quite important is 17mm on a FF camera(ie. 17mm FOV is 104 deg)and EF-S 10-22 on a 1.6x(ie. 16mm fov is 107 deg)

[m-zai]

well....if it's purely for landscape, i guess 10-22 is a better lens.
(and a lot of ppl have commented that it is a L-lens in disguise in terms of the quality of the pics it produces...)

17-40L can be considered as a event-coverage and landscape lens.

But then again, it really depends on what kind of pic you wanna take in long run

[tristram]

Originally Posted by panzerpunk What camera are you using?

O yes, I am using 350D right now. I have the 17-85 IS for a walkabout lens. Was wondering which lens will be a better option for landscape pictures.

[yehosaphat]

Originally Posted by tristram O yes, I am using 350D right now. I have the 17-85 IS for a walkabout lens. Was wondering which lens will be a better option for landscape pictures.

Since you already have 17-85 IS then get the 10-22mm!

[Hoky]

Originally Posted by yehosaphat Since you already have 17-85 IS then get the 10-22mm!

Either that or sell the 17-85...
And buy the EFS 10-22 and EFS17-55....

Their output quality are on par with L lens.
See review and samples at:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[panzerpunk]

Originally Posted by Hoky And buy the EFS 10-22 and EFS17-55....

Wah you are tempting him already

[jsbn]

Landscapes takes many form and u dun need a field of view of over 100 degrees to achieve something call a 'landscape' shot.

In fact, some of the stunning landscapes and ultra wide panoramas are achieved with 50mm or higher lenses

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by jsbn Landscapes takes many form and u dun need a field of view of over 100 degrees to achieve something call a 'landscape' shot. In fact, some of the stunning landscapes and ultra wide panoramas are achieved with 50mm or higher lenses

This is a very good point. I would recommend you buy the 10-22 more for perspective rather than FOV. Personally, that's what I use ultra-wides for, but that's just my opinion.

[vii_haven]

From what you already have, i'd say get the 10-22. You''d love the perspective it gives! If you get the 17-40L, you're only replicating a certain portion of focal length you already have.

i've the 10-22 and it doesn't realyl leave my camera unless i take people shots. the 10-22 is not that great for people shots cuz of the perspective.

[Snoweagle]

Originally Posted by m-zai well....if it's purely for landscape, i guess 10-22 is a better lens. (and a lot of ppl have commented that it is a L-lens in disguise in terms of the quality of the pics it produces...) 17-40L can be considered as a event-coverage and landscape lens. But then again, it really depends on what kind of pic you wanna take in long run

17-40 for events depending on what events. Some events need to zoom up close in which obviously the 17-40 can't do as it's more for streets,landscapes and portraits.

[Jester_farm]

isnt there a 12-24 by sigma. ive tried that lens and the quality isnt too bad.

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by Jester_farm isnt there a 12-24 by sigma. ive tried that lens and the quality isnt too bad.

There is, but the key problem with that lens is that it doesn't take regular filters, which is troublesome, to say the least.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by Stoned There is, but the key problem with that lens is that it doesn't take regular filters, which is troublesome, to say the least.

Oh? What filters does it take then? I was under the impression that it does take normal filters.

[Stoned]

Originally Posted by calebk Oh? What filters does it take then? I was under the impression that it does take normal filters.

Takes gelatin filters. The front is bulbous.

[BangBang1111]

I use to have a 10-22 and in my opinion, it is truely a good lens, again, as you have heard, it depends on your style and what you shoot. I'll agree that it is an L in disguise. Price wise, it is close enough to the 17-40 anyway, so you pay for quality. Not suitable for people shots, perspective for landscape is awesome. I have a few shot in a Italian chapel, brings out the grand scale of where I was standing

** How do I attach a pic here? I clicked on the 'Insert Image' icon and it prompts for a URL ***

Anyway, HAS ANYONE USED A 17-40 ON A CANON 5D and does it offer the same perspective as the 10-22 on a 1.6x camera???

[Stratix]

oh btw, those getting 10-22, normal filters are not useable also, due to vigetting. you'll probably need B+W slim filters to scrap thru... =)