I sold my canon 10-22 as it is an efs lens and won't work on my canon 5d or eos 1v, my 17-40 does. Yes, the 17-40 is not as wide considering the 1.6 crop factor, but if you think you will ever be using the full frame cameras, go with the 17-40 L lens. I still use it on my 20D as my favorite walk around lens. The 10-22 is an excellent lens for landscapes, but I don't really miss it. (Of course, I have a most excellent Hasselblad with a cfi 50mm on it, too.)
It does depend on your future plans body wise. On the 40D, a 17-40mm is a standard zoom while the EF-S 10-22mm is a wide angle zoom. Should you intend to upgrade to a full frame body, the EF-S mount will be un-usable!
Gaurav, I own and frequently use both the lenses, and IMO they are both excellent pieces of glass. I agree with the other's that if you plan on upgrading to a full frame anytime soon, then go for the 17-40.
When I'm out shooting landscapes I use the 10-22mm as a 'walkaround' and only switch to the 17-40 if necessary. BUT, I come from the world of full frame from my film days and definitely missed that wide angle when I went digital. So, I'm biased toward WIDE angle, and if it were me and I didn't plan on upgrading to a FF anytime soon, I would get the 10-22.
I also have both. I find them to have very similar signatures for lack of a better word. I personally prefer to shoot in the 17-40 range, so for me the 10-22 is the lens only for when I need something wider. But where the two lenses overlap (17-22mm) I find them almost indistinguishable.
In the end, you might find that you need both lenses or at least both ranges. 7mm on the wide end is a HUGE difference in field of view that you can only appreciate by looking through the viewfinder.
Also, if I were looking at the 17-40 f4L today and not immediately planning to purchase full frame DSLR, I would probably go for one of the EF-S mount 17-50 f2.8 type lenses from Canon, Tokina, Tamron or Sigma. In my case, I'd probably go for the Tokina.
I have both the 10-22 and 17-40 for my 20D. If I were to only have one...that's a tough question, but I lean towards favoring the 17-40. That is my main workhorse lens. I took the 10-22 and not the 17-40 to Maui a year ago and that was nice, I love a nice wide angle beach shot, but more than half my shots were in the 17+ range (so I would have been happy having just the 17-40). I'm going to Kauai in August and I think I'll take the 17-40 and not the 10-22 this time.
But the 10-22 is fun and a great supplemental lens.
Discussion
6 repliesI am sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find it in the archived topics.
Which one should I go for - they are both almost same in price.
Is there a big difference in IQ ?
Is the 10-17 mm range of 10-22 worth it for the 40D ?
Ian
When I'm out shooting landscapes I use the 10-22mm as a 'walkaround' and only switch to the 17-40 if necessary. BUT, I come from the world of full frame from my film days and definitely missed that wide angle when I went digital. So, I'm biased toward WIDE angle, and if it were me and I didn't plan on upgrading to a FF anytime soon, I would get the 10-22.
In the end, you might find that you need both lenses or at least both ranges. 7mm on the wide end is a HUGE difference in field of view that you can only appreciate by looking through the viewfinder.
Also, if I were looking at the 17-40 f4L today and not immediately planning to purchase full frame DSLR, I would probably go for one of the EF-S mount 17-50 f2.8 type lenses from Canon, Tokina, Tamron or Sigma. In my case, I'd probably go for the Tokina.
But the 10-22 is fun and a great supplemental lens.