# Lens Issue: 10-22 vs 16-35 vs 17-40



## vitaminj08 (Mar 12, 2012)

So I currently have a 40D and just decided to make the jump into FF and preorder the 5D mark III! I'm pretty sure that I want to keep the 40D as a backup (not 100% though) and to get some more reach out of my 70-200, but I'm torn about what to do with my UW zoom if I do end up keeping the 40D. I love my 10-22 and have never really had any issues with it, so what would yall recommend: keeping the 10-22 or selling it and purchasing either of the FF UW lenses? Would there be significant visual improvement from moving from crop UW to FF UW?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2012)

Personally, I sold my 10-22mm (even though I still have my 7D) after getting the 5DII and 16-35mm II. Overall IQ is better (generally) with FF; however, it's worth noting that the 10-22mm on APS-C has a lot less barrel distortion than the 16-35mm on FF.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 13, 2012)

I just sold my 10-22 as I'm going to the 5D3. I bought the 24 f1.4L to replace the 10-22. The 10-22 was a great lens, but too slow for my style of shooting. I gave the 16-35 some thought as it is close in price to the 24L, but f1.4 was the deciding factor by a long shot. For super wide I can use my 8-15L and keep it as non-fishey as possible if I want.


----------



## ronderick (Mar 13, 2012)

How important is the UW shot to you? If you're not very picky, what you can do is keep the 10-22 + 40D setup, and dedicate that combo to landscape shots you're taking. (I don't think there's anything wrong with the 10-22, so why spend the extra cash for the UW L lenses?).

If you really want the extra stops and cannot settle for less than the picture quality provided by the 5D3, you can sell the 10-22 and pick up a UW for the full frame. In this case, you'll have to bring your FF body when you want to take those wide landscape shots, leaving your crop body solely for the tele-shots. 

If you want keep 10-22 for crop body but also want to use the 5D3 for landscape shot (and have cash to invest), buy the 14mm or TS-E lenses for the FF body. This way, your crop body (with zoom lens) and FF body (with UW primes) will have different roles to play.

Choices, choices....


----------



## peederj (Mar 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I sold my 10-22mm (even though I still have my 7D) after getting the 5DII and 16-35mm II. Overall IQ is better (generally) with FF; however, it's worth noting that the 10-22mm on APS-C has a lot less barrel distortion than the 16-35mm on FF.



Note that the 5D3 can automagically correct for distortion, as well as a host of other lens deficiencies. (*Actually, only chromatic aberration and vignetting appear in-camera, according to the manual. The rest may be included in DPP...?)

I caved and picked up the 16-35 II with my 5d3 preorder even though I love the 10-22. I am figuring I'm going to want that body as primary and there's no sense in holding off on equipping it. The crop bodies are naturally best used for reach, so spending wide on FF is fairly mandatory even though it challenges the lens maker.

Having a 600d with a 10-22 and a Samyang 8mm in the bag for quick establishing shots is a nice compact plus if you can afford to have both.


----------



## YellowJersey (Mar 16, 2012)

I highly recommend the 17-40 f/4 L. I shoot landscapes primarily, so I don't need the 2.8. You also can't beat the price. It's a steal in comparison to the 16-35.


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 16, 2012)

YellowJersey said:


> I highly recommend the 17-40 f/4 L. I shoot landscapes primarily, so I don't need the 2.8. You also can't beat the price. It's a steal in comparison to the 16-35.



+1 - Love my 17-40 especially when it's raining and I'm out with an old 1d mk II - keep raining, I don't care 

Also consider the filter size - 17-40 is 77mm while 16-35 is 82mm (I think - only 2nd cup of coffee)


----------



## Flake (Mar 17, 2012)

Or you could refuse to buy Canons mediocre offerings and buy a Nikon 14 - 24mm f/2.8 and adaptor plate. OK it's manual focus but with depth of field being what it is on UWA lenses it isn't that difficult. If everyone boycotted Canons UWA lenses they'd be forced to produce something which worked as well as the competition, as it is they know people will buy what ever they produce so they don't have to try too hard (and it shows).


----------



## pwp (Mar 18, 2012)

Halfrack said:


> YellowJersey said:
> 
> 
> > I highly recommend the 17-40 f/4 L. I shoot landscapes primarily, so I don't need the 2.8. You also can't beat the price. It's a steal in comparison to the 16-35.
> ...



The 17-40 f/4L is a favourite in my bag. Though I don't expect IQ wide open. It's mush. But from f/5.6 - f/11 it's indistinguishable from 16-35 f/2.8II lenses I've tested it against. Half the weight & half the price. However if your shooting style demands at least good centre sharpness at f/2.8 then dig deep and pick up the 16-35II. It's a very good lens, unlikely to disappoint. 

Photographers have been disappointed with their Canon ultra wide zooms, and while these viewpoints have certain validity, keep in perspective the fact that there are uncountable great shots made worldwide with these lenses every single day. We are right to keep pushing Canon to significantly upgrade the UW zooms. But until upgrade day comes along, keep shooting and remember content is king.

Paul Wright


----------



## NWPhil (Mar 20, 2012)

echojs said:


> I have to (hate to) sell my 10-22 since I'm graduating from a Rebel XT to the 5D3. It's practically untouched since I did more closeup/candid work, so if anyone wants it, just let me know.



there is an ap for that!! ..errr.... I meant a sub-forum for that(selling it)


----------



## Arkarch (Mar 20, 2012)

I've been going through this whole EF-only UWA replacement cycle as well (Crop to FF)

After all my reviewing, I am likely to hang on to my 10-22 for my now second-body 7D for the short time and save my pennies for the new Zeiss 15mm prime for the 5DmIII - maybe the the ZF (F-mount) version for the additional aperture ring (saw that on the Stefan video) and the Nikon body option. I could see keeping the 7D/10-22 as a composing/backup tool should I begin to collect other UWA primes (the 17 TSE or the Zeiss 21)

The 16-35 II and 14 for around $2K just disappoint on the edge (the 14 just appears flawed when you read the Lenstip.com review article). The 17-40 is interesting - not as center great but for the price it may be a reasonable EF swap with the EF-S 10-22. The Nikkor 14-24 with adaptor is an option for this application.

But I cant but feel bummed that Canon needs to come out with a high quality UWA in the 14-16 range - prime or zoom.


----------



## echojs (Mar 20, 2012)

NWPhil said:


> there is an ap for that!! ..errr.... I meant a sub-forum for that(selling it)



I feel like a dimwit as I still haven't run across where that is...

So is it the consensus that the possible replacement for the EF-S 10-22 would be the 17-40?


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 21, 2012)

Of all the lenses I own, the 16-35 II is used more than any of them. You won't be disappointed spending the money on one. Trust me.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 21, 2012)

echojs said:


> NWPhil said:
> 
> 
> > there is an ap for that!! ..errr.... I meant a sub-forum for that(selling it)
> ...



I would recommend the 17-40.. it's sharper than the first generation 16-35, and half the price of the second generation 16-35, which is a fine lens... If you dont NEED 2.8 and want a very good lens on a full frame system, the 17-40 will suit you well. If you feel the need for speed, and a fat price, the 16-35 II is an excellent lens.


----------



## kennykodak (Mar 21, 2012)

i use the 16-35 II on interiors and large groups. love it.


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 22, 2012)

I have the 16-35 II. It's my favorite lens and it's amazin, dunno what the fuss in this thread is about? Why would you waste effort on a jerry-rigged manual 14-24 experiment (that makes absolutely zero sense).

Nikon's 14-24 is un-officially a replacement for it's 14mm prime lens, and is known to be a superior lens than it's prime 14mm. Canon's 14mm lens is known to be a better lens than both Nikon's 14mm Prime and it's 14-24mm zoom. 16-35 and 17-40 are much better focal ranges for photo-journalism style shooting. 

If you aren't worried about a photo-journalism useful focal range, before you do something goofy and at an extreme waste of money, get one of the Tilt-shifts or the 14mm prime and pair it with your favourite zoom to compliment it. 16-35 II and the 17-40 are amazing lenses and awards have been won with these things. another tip, the 16-35 mark I (discontinued) is also amazing and well worth considering and can hold it's own up against the other two. Look at photographs taken with these lenses in the right hands, they are all over the net, and if you can't make pictures like that, then I can assure you Canon coming out with a new lens isn't going to help you out at all.

Here's one place you can check out samples (many pages to look through 16-35II at the time of this posting is on page 3 of the threads list / I also recommend starting from the back of any lens thread to see the newest images first) http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107&order=desc

This dude has a ton of photos taken with 17-40 on crop body and 16-35 on full frame: http://www.dogfen.com/index1.html He was awarded National Geographic's World in Focus grand prize in 2009 with the 17-40 http://www.creative-journeys.com/?p=2390 (that's for his article, there is a much higher quality version of that picture on his website under the Guizhou section and it's utterly stunning)

hope that helps you guys/girls


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 4, 2012)

The 10-22mm is my only ultra-wide lens I own. I cant speak for the other 2 L's, but I love the 10-22 for its lack of distortion. Its taken some of my most favorite Photojournalist and landscape photos.
If your on crop sensor, the other two will not give you the dynamics of the 10-22.

Here is the original file.
http://images.us.viewbook.com/e5ea0dad9bf7f26e2358879126466cdf.jpg


----------



## !Xabbu (Apr 6, 2012)

You might want to have a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I have it and I think it's an excellent lens and has great value for money.
Let me know, if you would like to see a sample picture.


----------



## mdm041 (Apr 8, 2012)

I really like my 16-35 and hope to one day match it to a FF. Even on my 7d it feels wide IMHO.


----------



## iso79 (Apr 8, 2012)

If you have a Mark III you won't need to get the 16-35mm anyone ;D Just pick up the 17-40mm.


----------

