A&P 17-40L f/4 vs 10-22 f/3.8

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by LowLikeWhoaF150, Jun 12, 2006.

  1. Which would you get first and why?

    I've used the 10-22 for about 5 minutes while on a friends 30d, not nearly enough time to decide if I like it or not but I know that 10-22 is pretty freaken wide.


    17-40L = :boink: for the fact that it's an L lens so I expect many people to vote 17-40 just for that fact but it's not as wide as the 10-22. also f/3.8 > f/4 though not much of a difference.


    but I think the 17-40 might be nicer because it has a wider range.



    also aren't the prices about the same for these lenses?
     
  2. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    10-22 for cars
     
  3. Mr_Penut

    Mr_Penut Elitist Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    30,668
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    kanadia
    17-40

    wide ass youth mead

    four emmy wider bet a fishylens
     
  4. Airpoppoff

    Airpoppoff Vodka > Racing F1

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kirkland, Seattle, Wa
    12-24DX :eek3:
     
  5. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,733
    Likes Received:
    368
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    I use a 17-40 and it's more than wide enough for most of my car work and it's really a great lens for the money. Sharp, weather sealed, internal zoom. I love it.
     
  6. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    16-35 and 14mm :noes:
     
  7. What's the difference between 16-35 and 17-40 besides teh fact that one is an L and the other isn't.
     
  8. silverceli2k

    silverceli2k I

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL.
    16-35 and 17-40 are both L's 16-35 is f/2.8
     
  9. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
    :iough:

    What happened to your FEESH-EYE? Since you shoot a lot of indoor carshows, get the 16-35.
     
  10. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,733
    Likes Received:
    368
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
  11. Fubar

    Fubar OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    PA
    I recently bought the 10-22 and it is awesome. If you want a good wide lens for your 1.6 crop, then I would say go for the 10-22. I don't own the 17-40, but I do own the 24-70L and the 10-22 is quite comparable quality wise to the L glass.
     
  12. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    Too bad it is an EFS lens and doesn't carry the L badge. The L elitist crew will never buy one. The same can be said about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS that was just released.
     
  14. ( * )( * )

    ( * )( * ) OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    4,518
    Likes Received:
    0
  15. I just read the 16-35 vs 17-40 comparison

    my thoughts = :dunno: I like the 16-35 becuase it's sharper in the lower range of the spectrum while the 17-40 is sharper when zoomed out. I don't know if I'd want to get a 17-40 because of it's superior image quality at 40mm... :hs: If I wanted to take a pic of something at 40mm I'd put on the 24-70 that I soon hope to be purchasing as well.

    and for all those who keep asking I returned my 15mm fisheye to dell shortly after it arrived without having to pay for return shipping or anything. :) I don't really like primes yet. :hs:

    is there a lens that isn't a prime wider than the 10-22?
     
  16. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,733
    Likes Received:
    368
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    17-40 f/4 L @ 23mm, f/10, 1/200sec:

    [​IMG]

    Looks pretty sharp to me. :dunno:

    I'm sure that you will not exceed the capability of the lens and don't need to worry about any extra sharpness that the 16-35 f/2.8 L might have over the 17-40.

    Don't listen to all the measurebating idiots that worry more about an MTF chart than actually using the lens the rub themselves over.
     
  17. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    any image will look sharp sized down for net use. 100% crops would be better. No need to do any for us, though, since there are tons of lens comparisons on the net. The 17-40 is fine. The 16-35 is just better since it's 1 full stop faster.
     
  18. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
  19. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,733
    Likes Received:
    368
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    The 100% was tack sharp too and most people do resize for internet use, making it a fair sample. But, yeah, there are tons of comparos and crops on the web. The lens is more than fine.
     
  20. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    theres no doubt the 17-40 is sharp, thats not the issue. its slower and less wide than the big brother, but whether thats worth an extra500-800 is for him to decide. I got a steal on the 16-35 so I went that direction. obviously more people went with the 17-40


    i want to go play with the 14mmL though, curious if its worth it
     
  21. They were doing 100% crops and the 16-35 was sharper @ 17mm f/4 than the 17-40. I shoot for more than internet use so I don't always size down my images so the 17-40's distortion would be noticed more in print especially in larger prints.

    also isn't the 17-40 an ef-s lens? If I plan to get the 1d later in the future I might as well get the 16-35 and not have to worry about getting another wide.
     
  22. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    17-40 is ef, and L, just a f/4. not a huge difference, both weather sealed and similar size/weight (compared to a 3rd party equivalnet)

    just depends if you want to fork over the $$$ for the 16-35
     
  23. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    well duh, of course the 16-35 will be sharper at 4.0 than the 17-40 at 4.0
     
  24. N-Word-Jim

    N-Word-Jim Cure for boredom

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Midwest
    Yep, I'd just buy a 5d and a 17-40L or 16-35L instead
     
  25. well that alone should make the 16-35 100% better than the 17-40 end of discussion.

    But wait to make the deal even sweeter you can drop down 1 full stop :eek3:
    And to make the deal make you want to wet your pants you can zoom out to 16mm and still remain a full stop faster than the 17-40 :wackit: :mamoru:
     

Share This Page