10-22 vs 17-40L lense

k2c1959

ive seen a lot of threads on here in reference to the 10-22 lense and how great it is, so my question is what is the difference between my 17-40L and
the 10-22. is it just wider angle or what that makes it so great. i actually thought of buying one of those b4 i bought my 17-40L but a really good sales pitch made my choice and im very happy with it, but would like to see the general consensus of the population here between the two. i do about 85% landscape photog, so the 17-40 works well at that, but ok what am i missing.....:scratch

ziggy53

k2c1959 wrote:

ive seen a lot of threads on here in reference to the 10-22 lense and how great it is, so my question is what is the difference between my 17-40L and
the 10-22. is it just wider angle or what that makes it so great. i actually thought of buying one of those b4 i bought my 17-40L but a really good sales pitch made my choice and im very happy with it, but would like to see the general consensus of the population here between the two. i do about 85% landscape photog, so the 17-40 works well at that, but ok what am i missing.....

You're not missing anything, except having this lens. The 10-22mm zoom gives a rather extreme angle-of-view for a rectilinear lens. At 10mm, on a 1.6x crop camera, it provides around 3.5 times the angle of a standard lens. It captures an entire vista in a single image, no mean feat, and it does this with minimal distortion.

It also does this with rather high quality in many respects.

A lens of this design, has only been possible with recent developments in lens design. 3 aspherical elements and a Super-UD element allow a construction not possible before 1971. (The Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical was the first rectilinear lens, in common production, with an aspherical element, and it was produced in 1971.)

The Canon 10-22mm is a special purpose lens, and has a place in scenic, landscape and interior photography.

By comparison, the 17-40mm is no more than a true wide angle zoom on a 1.6 crop camera.

ziggy53

leebase

ziggy53 wrote:

The Canon 10-22mm is a special purpose lens, and has a place in scenic, landscape and interior photography.

By comparison, the 17-40mm is no more than a true wide angle zoom on a 1.6 crop camera.

I don't have the 10-200, but I do have the Tamron 17-35. I got it to finally get a quality wide on my 20D and digital rebel. It's very comparable to the Canon 17-40.

BUT -- I when I added the Canon 5D to my set -- WOW -- what a lens. I love shooting ultra wide. You have to be careful with the lens. You an end up with your feet in photos....and it presents difficulties when using flash.

It's use for landscapes is rather obvious. You get a wider view. It's also very helpful for situations where you can't back up. But I like to have fun with it's perspective.



Notice my feet ended up in the photo. When you shoot up close to someone, there is distortion, which can be used creatively as in this shot.



Again -- this shot was taken with the distortion effect in mind.



I also use it when shooting on the dance floor at weddings. I have to get close because people dance in a circle. If I have a longer lens then I can't get more than their face. If I back up, then I'm out of the circle and see only the backs of people's heads.

I'm mostly a people shooter -- and this is probably not the best "people lens". But for landscapes (where you want a sweeping vista) and interior architecture (where you want the whole scene but can't back up) -- it's a very good focal range.

Now that I know what it's like to have an ultra wide -- I'd want the 10-22 if I didn't have a full frame camera.

Lee

Nikolai

What Ziggy said

ziggy53 wrote:

....
The Canon 10-22mm is a special purpose lens, and has a place in scenic, landscape and interior photography.

By comparison, the 17-40mm is no more than a true wide angle zoom on a 1.6 crop camera.

ziggy53

At 10mm you can get something like this (pardon the quality, it is a non processed version):

Moro Rock, Sequoia National Park (Vertigo Alert!):



Of course, on a FF body, 17-40 will give you pretty much the same.. :

leebase

Another "feet in the photo" shot

Lee

k2c1959

i think i need this lense after those shots posted, i really like the one with the girl in glasses, i can have a lot of fun at least with my grandbabies with
that lense, i have 3 of them and they always are hammin' it up for papa. my oldest being only 4. (i probably have well in excess of 2000 shots of her alone)..lol

thanks, i appreciate the input.

Nikolai

Yeah

leebase wrote:

Another "feet in the photo" shot

Lee

This is "da lens" for this :-)
Note: with fisheye you may also get your chin in the frame, so be careful

leebase

k2c1959 wrote:

i think i need this lense after those shots posted, i really like the one with the girl in glasses, i can have a lot of fun at least with my grandbabies with that lense.

It's a very fun lens.



A more normal use for this lens is the shot of this cabin from our summer vacation.



But back to fun:



Be careful. If you notice my wife is in the center in this photo. You don't want your wife near the edges as in this shot:



Lee

System

leebase wrote:

It's a very fun lens.

Be careful. If you notice my wife is in the center in this photo. You don't want your wife near the edges as in this shot:



Lee

That's instant death my friend. !

JCDoss

truth wrote:

That's instant death my friend. !

Yep... nice knowin ya!

gus

I sold my 10-22 this week. Its a fun 'effect' lens to me but not what i would call a photographic lens. Do remember that its an EFS lens & i have no idea where the whole EFS evolution is going...i just recon that it wont be long after an upgrade or 2 that it wont be any more than a paper weight. Also (again my opinion) ive seen sharper haircuts than this lens.