EF10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 or EF17-40mm f/4L?

[lchoong78]

I'm using the Canon 400D and considering to buy a len aim to shoot a portrait and the background conccurently. which one is suitable? As far as i know the price of these 2 lens quite similar.

I understand my camera has the crop issue and if EF10-22mm will be maximised the landscape purpose, but at the same time the brand of "L" len of EF17-40mm also attracting me. I really don't know how to choose. pls help.

p/s: currently i only have 17-55mm F2.8.

 

[StrifeYun]

17-55 gd enough, 17-40 just for the built ?? and lose the f-stop ??

 

[babykailan]

why do you want to duplicate the same focal length with a 17-40? the 17-55 is perfect for cropped cams. if you need the wide end, the 10-22 is possibly the best choice. screw L !!!

 

[charlesleong]

if L attracts you so much, put a red rubber band. the 17-40 is worse for a crop camera than the 17-55. and 10-22 is likely to introduce distortion into your portraits.

 

[calebk]

Yeah, why would you want to get a 17-40 if the range is already covered by the 17-55, which is an all round more suitable lens for 1.6x crop anyway?

Go for the 10-22 to complement your current range.

 

[lchoong78]

why do you want to duplicate the same focal length with a 17-40? the 17-55 is perfect for cropped cams. if you need the wide end, the 10-22 is possibly the best choice. screw L !!!

17-55 gd enough, 17-40 just for the built ?? and lose the f-stop ??

Thks for replying. i'm not so sure the comparison between th 17-55mm & 17-40mm, but as I looking at these 2 lens's description of thier angle of view (diagonal), the 17-55mm is 78°-30° - 12°50' whereby the 17-40 is 104°-57°30'.

Does this meaned that 17-40mm which given the view of 104° is better wide end as compare with 17-55mm's 78°? pls correct me if i wrong.

 

[calebk]

Thks for replying. i'm not so sure the comparison between th 17-55mm & 17-40mm, but as I looking at these 2 lens's description of thier angle of view (diagonal), the 17-55mm is 78°-30° - 12°50' whereby the 17-40 is 104°-57°30'.

Does this meaned that 17-40mm which given the view of 104° is better wide end as compare with 17-55mm's 78°? pls correct me if i wrong.

The 17-40's AoV is before considering the crop factor, whereas the 17-55's AoV is after considering the crop factor, because the 17-55 is an EF-S lens and can only be used on 1.6x crop cameras anyway.

Ultimately, because their focal lengths at the widest end are identical, you are going to get identical AoV using both lenses on the same camera.

 

[lchoong78]

The 17-40's AoV is before considering the crop factor, whereas the 17-55's AoV is after considering the crop factor, because the 17-55 is an EF-S lens and can only be used on 1.6x crop cameras anyway.

Ultimately, because their focal lengths at the widest end are identical, you are going to get identical AoV using both lenses on the same camera.

Thanks Calebk, i really dun know that the AoV mentioned in their respective descriptions that 17-55mm is after the crop factor and 17-40's Aov is before the consideration of Crop factor. Now I understand. Thanks.

 

[lchoong78]

if L attracts you so much, put a red rubber band. the 17-40 is worse for a crop camera than the 17-55. and 10-22 is likely to introduce distortion into your portraits.

Putting the red rubber band would not change its quality performance. haha.
Thanks anyway. I just leaned a new thing that in term of the focal lengths at the widest end, both lens are similar. I will go ahead the 10-22mm for my landscape shoot.

 

[shutterbeetle]

Your 17-55 is good enough for most shooting purposes. And FYI, the 10-22 is an excellent lens, with image quality as good as those produced by 16-35L.

 

[Shin Howard]

Consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 if you are into lanscape shots.
While your 17-55 is already 1 of the best.

Unless you are really rich..then get this

 

[lchoong78]

Your 17-55 is good enough for most shooting purposes. And FYI, the 10-22 is an excellent lens, with image quality as good as those produced by 16-35L.

Thanks shuttbeetle.
I will deeply consider to get the 10-22mm.

 

[lchoong78]

Consider the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 if you are into lanscape shots.
While your 17-55 is already 1 of the best.

Unless you are really rich..then get this

may i know how much is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8mm? is it good?
Oh.. the EF14mm f/2.8L...my god, that too expensive for me. think will be really wasted if such a excellent len used by me, futhermore, i not that rich. haha
Currently, I rather improve my skill 1st..;p

 

[ek1029]

get the 10-22 you won't be disappointed... If you ever upgrade to FF it will hold its value well... most people say the 10-22 is sharper than the 17-40 on FF

 

[Leong40D]

i use 10-22 b4, than try 17-40 f4.0L. 10-22 really sharper than 17-40. when you zoom in or enlarge the picture for detail 10-22 really sharp.

 

[lchoong78]

get the 10-22 you won't be disappointed... If you ever upgrade to FF it will hold its value well... most people say the 10-22 is sharper than the 17-40 on FF

i use 10-22 b4, than try 17-40 f4.0L. 10-22 really sharper than 17-40. when you zoom in or enlarge the picture for detail 10-22 really sharp.

wah...look like most members are prefer 10-22 than the 17-40 f/4L.
ok. my target now will be 10-22. thanks guys.

 

[calebk]

wah...look like most members are prefer 10-22 than the 17-40 f/4L.
ok. my target now will be 10-22. thanks guys.

Definitely. Their scope of usage is very different on an APS-C camera.

 

[charlesleong]

be very careful when taking people at the edge of the frame with the 10-22. they will look very fat.

 

[Lost Dog]

what I would do in group pics. Put the fat ones in the center and the slim ones at the edges. that way, everyone looked equal.. hahaha

By the way, get the 10-22. I love the distortions.
and keep your 17-55. that's what I did.

 

[lchoong78]

be very careful when taking people at the edge of the frame with the 10-22. they will look very fat.

TQ u advice. i suppose u are meant that the image will be get distortion.