my latest obsession is between these 2 lenses..any thoughts?

[jann1033]

both Canons
efs 10-22 f3.5-4.5
vs
ef 17-40 f4

if any one has both, which do you like or use better?

figuring the 10-22 is i think from what i have read a little better lens but more specialized and the 17-40 closer to a walk around but don't think there is a great alternative to the 10-22 distance( read about the 3rd party 12-24s, but they are not cheap enough to let me get that and the 17-40 plus most seem to have my panic inducing ca problem). i am getting really nit picky i think which is a bad thing since i don't have deep pockets
i have 50mm, 100mm, 70-200mm i use and 18-55 i don't use much but do have for use in a pinch

so i really want a super wide but wonder if i will miss the mid section to much. i checked the focal length and it is a pretty big range although i don't really think personally i use it much ( might be due to the lenses i have had though since my 28-135 wasn't working) my usual gripe is "i can't get wide enough", not" i want 35mm"...and the 50mm i have such a problem focusing but guess i could just work more with it...right now that is the top of the budget( mid $600) cause i want to have enough in reserve for a 30d or if the next model comes out...i don't really care about the efs since i don't think I'll be upgrading past this 30d model anytime in the foreseeable future

or does anyone know of a reasonable but good lens i can pinch my pennies to get that is between 10-22 and 50 /70mm?
thanks for any and all suggestions

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I've used the 17-40 and am pretty happy with it. If you intend to use it on a Rebel or Dxx series camera, I'd get a different hood for it. The hood that comes with it is designed for true 17mm coverage and looks somewhat like a saucer. I think there is a 24mm lens hood that fits it and provides better protection from flare and damage.

It's hard to say whether you'll miss being able to shoot between 22mm and 50mm. A few trips to WDW ago, I shot a lot with the 17-40. On my last trip I shot much more with a 24-70 and found very little need to go wider. The biggest difference is that I was taking more "scenic" shots the first time and more kid shots the second time. It was cloudy during most of my last trip, so a wide angle was really that useful.

 

[mabas9395]

I say go for the ultra wide angle. I have the canon 10-22 and LOVE it. It is so much fun to use. It allows you to explore a creative side to photography that I couldn't do with any other lens. The 9" focusing distance is a blast. Yes, it is limiting in what you can do with it, but I have found myself using it more than I thought I would as a walk around lens. It would not be the first lens I would suggest someone to get to add to their kit, but if you already have a few other ones, it is a great compliment to your existing equipment. And the lens is incredibly sharp, some compare the image quality to L glass even though it can't be labled such because it is an EF-S lens that won't work on FF cameras.

If you want to save a few bucks, the sigma 10-20 is supposed to be very good and about $200 cheaper (about a half stop slower I think though).

UWA Rules!!!

 

[boBQuincy]

Since you already have a 18-55 the 17-40 doesn't really extend your "arsenal", although it does improve the quality. The 10-22 however, gives you a greatly extended range.
I was surprised at how much I use the wider range of this lens.

As Mark noted, the lens hoods are not really designed for a 1.6 crop camera. I use Canon's 24-105 hood on my 10-22 and can detect no vignetting at all, even with the "clear blue sky" test.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I use Canon's 24-105 hood on my 10-22 and can detect no vignetting at all,

That surprises me. The FOV of a 10mm lens on your 30D should be the equivalent of 16mm on full frame. I would have thought that using a hood designed for at 24mm lens would cause significant vingetting. I've heard of a lot of people using the 24mm lens hood on the 17-40mm, but never on the 10-22mm. I guess it shows that you don't know until you've tried.

 

[LinkDIS]

I use 17-40 with my 350D for a 5 months and this is a very good lense. Although 10-22 much better to landscape because of the 1.6 crop factor.

 

[jann1033]

if i can figure out how to reduce or eradicate the ca on my 28-135 lens i am getting the 10-22...since i'll keep the 28-135 if i can do that, i don't really need another lens close to that range even if it is better..right now the 28 is sharp just purple( well it was previous to last "repair" so now it could be purple green yellow and fuzzy, who knows )