:dunno: I dunno which wide angle lens to buy? Which one is good for both landscape and also good for portraits?
Or what's the main diff between this 2 lens?
Or what's the main diff between this 2 lens?
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or EF 17-40mm f/4L USM?
- Thread starter TwisterMadSlayer
- Start date
one is ef mount and one is efs. ef mount becomes a wide angle on ff body:dunno: I dunno which wide angle lens to buy? Which one is good for both landscape and also good for portraits?
Or what's the main diff between this 2 lens?
L lens also has constant aperture.one is ef mount and one is efs. ef mount becomes a wide angle on ff body
So which lens should i buy for my Canon 7D?
one is ef mount and one is efs. ef mount becomes a wide angle on ff body
yes. Both are uwa lens. However, 10-22 is for cropped body camera and the 17-40 is for full frame body camera.
10-22 in a cropped body has a 1.6x magnification. Therefore the 10-22 is equivalent to 16-35.
well he mentioned "good for both landscape and also good for portraits" so im gonna go with 17-40L as this would give me more range to work with
Cool! But if compare with the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is still a better choice? Since the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is so called the "The world with one lens".
its the world with one lens but theres a trade off for image quality for such a long focal length range. maybe you can tell us what kind of shooting you will do with your lens and we can recommend based on that
I had a 18-200 as my first lens. Cover from wide to telephoto. It was the perfect lens to use during the singapore drift 2010. Depending on your need, This may or may not be the perfect lens for you. However, for me who prefer not to change lens, this is the near perfect ideal one.
Note that the uwa 10-22 do distort and any other lens at the wide zoom like 18. Because of this distortion, people will tends to look a little rounder or wider in the middle. It is possible to manage this distortion with a uwa however, ideally portraits starts from 24, 30 onwards with minimal or no distortion and this depend on lens. uwa is good for landscape or any situation that may require a large field of view of about 100 degree.
As deathrequiem said, what you like to shoot exactly?
I agree that the 17-40 will be better if you wanted one lens for both landscape and portraits. However, I would recommend a 18-55 instead as this is a good kit lens to start off with. Affordable, decent performance and just as capable doing landscape and portraits.
orrr the tamron 17-50 non vc going for about 600+ first hand. its sharp and has constant aperture f2.8. im getting mine soon!
Id recommend the 10-22 instead of the 17-40 for the sole fact that the 10-22 is a 16-35mm on your 7D while the 17-40 is a 27-64mm instead. Wide angle doesnt begin unless at 24mm (35mm conversion) and we are not even talking about UWA unless >18mm (35mm conversion). With the $130+ difference saved if you got the 10-22 instead of the 17-40, you can get yourself the 50mm 1.8 for about $130. That will solve any portrait needs you might have.
The 10-22 covers a TOTALLY different range than the 18-200. Also, you would have to be VERY good at knowing how to utilize distortion to use this lens for portraits.
For landscape, you need the right lens for the right place. For some places, the 10-22 will be better. For others, a mid-range like the 17-40. for other areas, you could even shoot landscape with a 300mm lens. (see Luminous Landscape when they went to Antarctica). You need to have an understanding of focal length, then using your imagination you'll know what lens you will need for a specific location.
For landscape, you need the right lens for the right place. For some places, the 10-22 will be better. For others, a mid-range like the 17-40. for other areas, you could even shoot landscape with a 300mm lens. (see Luminous Landscape when they went to Antarctica). You need to have an understanding of focal length, then using your imagination you'll know what lens you will need for a specific location.
Last edited:
To TS, just a small heads up on the optical quality of the 10-22 in retrospect to the 17-40 in case your choice of lens is heavily factored by the "L" designation,
"The Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM uses 3 aspheric elements and 1 Super UD element. The aspherics are designed to minimize monochromatic aberrations (such as spherical aberration), while the Super UD element helps to minimize chromatic aberration. Although the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 doesn't carry the "L" designation, the use of multiple aspheric elements and UD glass is characteristic of EF "L" series lenses and has lead more than one photographer to wonder whether this lens would have had an "L" designation if it had not been in the EF-S series. By comparison the full frame equivalent EF16-35mm f/2.8L USM uses 3 aspherics and 2 regular UD elements and the EF 17-40/4L uses 3 aspherics and 1 super UD element, just like the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5. No EF-S lenses have the "L" designation to date."
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_10-22_review.html
In essence, the 10-22 is like an identical twin of the 17-40, just a tad smaller in size and different in focal range.
"The Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM uses 3 aspheric elements and 1 Super UD element. The aspherics are designed to minimize monochromatic aberrations (such as spherical aberration), while the Super UD element helps to minimize chromatic aberration. Although the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 doesn't carry the "L" designation, the use of multiple aspheric elements and UD glass is characteristic of EF "L" series lenses and has lead more than one photographer to wonder whether this lens would have had an "L" designation if it had not been in the EF-S series. By comparison the full frame equivalent EF16-35mm f/2.8L USM uses 3 aspherics and 2 regular UD elements and the EF 17-40/4L uses 3 aspherics and 1 super UD element, just like the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5. No EF-S lenses have the "L" designation to date."
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_10-22_review.html
In essence, the 10-22 is like an identical twin of the 17-40, just a tad smaller in size and different in focal range.
Last edited:
Similar threads
