Which new lens, Canon 10-22 or 17-40L (for crop sensor camera)
- Thread starter Imagedude
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
I have only used the 17-40, mainly on my 5D and then more recently on a 10D
I found it a little limited on the 10D but I like really wide angles.
Technically the performance should be better on the L lens but as the crop sensor only uses part of the working image circle there is probably little practical difference in resolution.
Only 7mm in it size wise but 115 grams weight wise which might be a factor I suppose.
In the end it's horses for courses I suppose.
I don't know what "Standard" lens you have so I don't know if you are left with a gap in your range but that may also be something to consider.
I found it a little limited on the 10D but I like really wide angles.
Technically the performance should be better on the L lens but as the crop sensor only uses part of the working image circle there is probably little practical difference in resolution.
Only 7mm in it size wise but 115 grams weight wise which might be a factor I suppose.
In the end it's horses for courses I suppose.
I don't know what "Standard" lens you have so I don't know if you are left with a gap in your range but that may also be something to consider.
I've got a Sigma 17-35 that I use on a 10D (crop sensor).. It's useable outdoors but working close in, such as indoors, I always end up wishing I had something wider.. guess it depends on what you you'll be using it for..
and as Wayland says, will it give you a gap in coverage with your existing lenses?
and as Wayland says, will it give you a gap in coverage with your existing lenses?
So if you are used to having the gaps between prime lenses that will worry you less but the gap between 50mm and 22mm is much bigger than the numbers suggest.
Is there any way you can get to a store and try them out on your body to get a feel for them?
Is there any way you can get to a store and try them out on your body to get a feel for them?
My opinion:
Instead of pricey L series (built for full frame sensor) you'll get perfectly ok lenses that are designed for your crop sensor, for less money, less bulk, less weight. Tokina, Sigma, Tamron. Not exactly as good resell value but hey the 17-40L weighs a LOT. Just sold one, after 5 years I noticed my justification for lugging it around wasn't enough.
Remember although you can fix perspective distortions in post process, it's actually a big difference between rectilinear (17-40L) and fisheye geometries. Rectilinear wide angle lenses keep straight lines straight but the edges of your wide angle picture will appear quite stretched although accurate in geometry.
Fisheye keeps an equivalence in angular presentation (a bicep will appear just as thick in the center of the image and the edge) but straight lines are all gone (trees, horizon, almost anything you see) unless they cross the picture center.
Dustnshadow
Instead of pricey L series (built for full frame sensor) you'll get perfectly ok lenses that are designed for your crop sensor, for less money, less bulk, less weight. Tokina, Sigma, Tamron. Not exactly as good resell value but hey the 17-40L weighs a LOT. Just sold one, after 5 years I noticed my justification for lugging it around wasn't enough.
Remember although you can fix perspective distortions in post process, it's actually a big difference between rectilinear (17-40L) and fisheye geometries. Rectilinear wide angle lenses keep straight lines straight but the edges of your wide angle picture will appear quite stretched although accurate in geometry.
Fisheye keeps an equivalence in angular presentation (a bicep will appear just as thick in the center of the image and the edge) but straight lines are all gone (trees, horizon, almost anything you see) unless they cross the picture center.
Dustnshadow
Hi
Which lens did you go for in the end?
If you haven't made the jump yet, I will make a recommendation.
ATB
Sack
Which lens did you go for in the end?
If you haven't made the jump yet, I will make a recommendation.
ATB
Sack
OK then
I have used the both the Canon 10-22 and the 17-40L on a 50D and a 7D. They are undoubtedly both decent lenses in their own way. But what you truly want to use the lenses for is going to help you decide more clearly. Be as honest with yourself as you can as you are going to shell out up to £615 (best price I could get for the 17-40L with quick google-fu) and no doubt want to get the most use out of it. Having read some of your posts re your travels/adventures etc I can see why you would want a true wide angle in your kit 50mm doesn't cut it on a crop (80mm eq. is a decent portrait lens but no vista taker). Which brings me on to the wide angle. 17-40mm on your 50D is only 27-64mm which is wide enough to get a decent landscape but not IMO sufficient enough to get as creative artistically in a studio situation/indoors with portraits or still life. The L lenses are quality lenses but the 17-40L is not a new lens...nearly 10years old. None of the lenses I mention will have IS but it isn't that necessary with a constant f4 aperture in this case (and being a wide angle lens). It's bigger and heavier than other similar lenses, but TBH for an L class lens it's quite lightweight and you are getting very good glass and it is weatherproof. I have used one in dry/arid desert locations (rather than wet) and it coped well with the dust (plenty of reviews mentioning water), plus it is pretty robust and will take a few knocks. So, big, heavy-ish, no IS, oldish design and not the widest, but quality glass with weatherproofing, fast-ish (for a w/a zoom)
Next up, the Canon 10-22mm...IMO about £150 - £200 too expensive and a lens bought by Canon fanboys without doing much homework. Sorry, sounds a bit harsh, but for the money (at circa £600-650) it is not as good as two, possibly three alternatives. Before I go on any further, I should say that I am by no means the de facto authority on photographic equipment. I use cameras in my daily work for a multitude of tasks, but the equipment I use really gets used. As a company we have never seen the point in spending money on anything that wasn't tried and tested so we usually hired gear before buying, especially when it came to glass. Getting back on topic; this lens is one of those items that Canon has in it's line-up that carries a price tag because of the name on the case. I don't think Canon (Photographic) is as guilty as some other companies (can you hear me up there Steve Jobs) but this lens is one for the pot. It's a decent lens, IMO it has a more creative range of 16-35 eq than the 27-64 eq on the 17-40mm (getting complicated here) but other than that it's no better than what follows...or arguably not as good (many conflicting reviews online, but IMO the lens is beaten on price).
I would therefore suggest looking at the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM. Constant F3.5 aperture as good build quality as the Canon and IMO better pic quality even wide open. Great fast-ish glass for £200 or so less. We had this at work and it was one of our favourite lenses. I have used this a lot with great results, it's well built (I have had several Sigma lenses along with Canons) and comes with it's own case and petal hood. Main drawback is the massive 82mm filter thread!
I have the older Sigma 10-22mm F4-5.6 and wouldn't go on any shoot without it. Not as fast but rock solid build and good quality pics.
The other option would be the Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF). I have heard good things about this lens professionally, but I have not used it myself...although, personally I don't like the aesthetics...but is that a reason not to buy..don't know.
So, to sum up, if it were me, I would be looking to buy either the 17-40L or the Sigma 10-20 F3.5. There's a sizeable difference in price, but also in their uses and capabilities. You will have to work that one out for yourself, but if you want any other input just let me know.
Sorry, long post, but with regard to what Wayland said re the gaps in your lens coverage (which is sound advice especially if you want/need to get full coverage..but), I'd say overkill unless your livelihood depends on that exquisite perfectly composed shot for which you are prepared to hump miles with 100kg of equipment. Having read your bio I would think that you know enough about equipment and photography/videography to make an informed decision, but FWIW I would suggest that you tailor your gear/glass per trip. Waylands photos are superb, but under the circumstances that I have taken most of my pics I have usually had the 'luxury' of having 2-3 lenses max and 2 bodies.
ATB
Sack
I have used the both the Canon 10-22 and the 17-40L on a 50D and a 7D. They are undoubtedly both decent lenses in their own way. But what you truly want to use the lenses for is going to help you decide more clearly. Be as honest with yourself as you can as you are going to shell out up to £615 (best price I could get for the 17-40L with quick google-fu) and no doubt want to get the most use out of it. Having read some of your posts re your travels/adventures etc I can see why you would want a true wide angle in your kit 50mm doesn't cut it on a crop (80mm eq. is a decent portrait lens but no vista taker). Which brings me on to the wide angle. 17-40mm on your 50D is only 27-64mm which is wide enough to get a decent landscape but not IMO sufficient enough to get as creative artistically in a studio situation/indoors with portraits or still life. The L lenses are quality lenses but the 17-40L is not a new lens...nearly 10years old. None of the lenses I mention will have IS but it isn't that necessary with a constant f4 aperture in this case (and being a wide angle lens). It's bigger and heavier than other similar lenses, but TBH for an L class lens it's quite lightweight and you are getting very good glass and it is weatherproof. I have used one in dry/arid desert locations (rather than wet) and it coped well with the dust (plenty of reviews mentioning water), plus it is pretty robust and will take a few knocks. So, big, heavy-ish, no IS, oldish design and not the widest, but quality glass with weatherproofing, fast-ish (for a w/a zoom)
Next up, the Canon 10-22mm...IMO about £150 - £200 too expensive and a lens bought by Canon fanboys without doing much homework. Sorry, sounds a bit harsh, but for the money (at circa £600-650) it is not as good as two, possibly three alternatives. Before I go on any further, I should say that I am by no means the de facto authority on photographic equipment. I use cameras in my daily work for a multitude of tasks, but the equipment I use really gets used. As a company we have never seen the point in spending money on anything that wasn't tried and tested so we usually hired gear before buying, especially when it came to glass. Getting back on topic; this lens is one of those items that Canon has in it's line-up that carries a price tag because of the name on the case. I don't think Canon (Photographic) is as guilty as some other companies (can you hear me up there Steve Jobs) but this lens is one for the pot. It's a decent lens, IMO it has a more creative range of 16-35 eq than the 27-64 eq on the 17-40mm (getting complicated here) but other than that it's no better than what follows...or arguably not as good (many conflicting reviews online, but IMO the lens is beaten on price).
I would therefore suggest looking at the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM. Constant F3.5 aperture as good build quality as the Canon and IMO better pic quality even wide open. Great fast-ish glass for £200 or so less. We had this at work and it was one of our favourite lenses. I have used this a lot with great results, it's well built (I have had several Sigma lenses along with Canons) and comes with it's own case and petal hood. Main drawback is the massive 82mm filter thread!
I have the older Sigma 10-22mm F4-5.6 and wouldn't go on any shoot without it. Not as fast but rock solid build and good quality pics.
The other option would be the Tamron SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF). I have heard good things about this lens professionally, but I have not used it myself...although, personally I don't like the aesthetics...but is that a reason not to buy..don't know.
So, to sum up, if it were me, I would be looking to buy either the 17-40L or the Sigma 10-20 F3.5. There's a sizeable difference in price, but also in their uses and capabilities. You will have to work that one out for yourself, but if you want any other input just let me know.
Sorry, long post, but with regard to what Wayland said re the gaps in your lens coverage (which is sound advice especially if you want/need to get full coverage..but), I'd say overkill unless your livelihood depends on that exquisite perfectly composed shot for which you are prepared to hump miles with 100kg of equipment. Having read your bio I would think that you know enough about equipment and photography/videography to make an informed decision, but FWIW I would suggest that you tailor your gear/glass per trip. Waylands photos are superb, but under the circumstances that I have taken most of my pics I have usually had the 'luxury' of having 2-3 lenses max and 2 bodies.
ATB
Sack
Was just looking at the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM (as recommended above) for sale on an auction site and there was a link to some piccy's in the add.... Ignore the lens/ad/sale, just an example.
Takes a very nice piccy IMHO. Tempted myself. http://nhauduc.smugmug.com/Other/Sigma-10-20mm-f35/23075661_ChrZVW#!i=1869259782&k=5ZNPjdp
Takes a very nice piccy IMHO. Tempted myself. http://nhauduc.smugmug.com/Other/Sigma-10-20mm-f35/23075661_ChrZVW#!i=1869259782&k=5ZNPjdp
Instead of looking at the canon 17-40 f4 L
Have a look for a second hand canon 17-35 f2.8 amazing lens and they go for around £500 secondhand, when they were new they were over £1000, its the predecessor of the canon 16-35mm 2.8 which you can buy now for over a thousand.
Both amazing lenses, you get your nice wide angles,build quality,L series glass and the 2.8 which'll give you a much sharper image at f4 then the 17-40L.
If you dont want to drop £500 on a lens,take a look at the tokina wide lenses they do a few options and they're all really well received in reviews they do some super wide angle zooms and then the more standard wide zooms.
Have a look for a second hand canon 17-35 f2.8 amazing lens and they go for around £500 secondhand, when they were new they were over £1000, its the predecessor of the canon 16-35mm 2.8 which you can buy now for over a thousand.
Both amazing lenses, you get your nice wide angles,build quality,L series glass and the 2.8 which'll give you a much sharper image at f4 then the 17-40L.
If you dont want to drop £500 on a lens,take a look at the tokina wide lenses they do a few options and they're all really well received in reviews they do some super wide angle zooms and then the more standard wide zooms.
Similar threads
