17-40 or 10-22

[YokotaS13]

help me decide

[Nemesis]

Well by 10-22 you are probably talking about the Sigma or Tokina correct? Honestly, most if not all wide angle lenses are around the aperture range of 3.5-4 ish.

However, your 17-40 is probably an L glass correct? Plus has a stop of 2.8? That is probably a way more practical lens for you to have. Id start off with the essential lenses first then go for the wide angles and specialty lenses after. That's what I did at least. But the 10-22 is a really great lens though because of the type of shots you can pull off with it and effect you get at 10mm.


EDIT: Oh wait, damn I looked at the EF 17-40mmL specs, and its an F4. I dunno man, its up to you lol Knowing that Id probably go for the 10-22, but then again the L glass quality is something that would keep me wanting that one. Maybe look into the 24-70L?

Hell I dont know, flip a coin. :lmfao:

[YokotaS13]

canon on both
im not gonna buy anythign but canon except maybe the sigma 70-200 2.8 but thats it

im tryign to keep it under 700 bucks on this lens. the 2.8 is almost 1200-1400 bucks so thats out of the call

i dunno whatever i find a deal on ill get

[YokotaS13]

what core leses would you reccomend then?
i was looking at the 17-85 IS yesterday pondering it as a replacement for the stock glass

[Fast Shadow]

The Canon EF-S 10-22 is a SICK lens, I would highly recommend it to anyone that likes to shoot wide angle subjects like landscapes, architecture, or close up shots of cars. It will distort on the wide end which is actually an effect I seek out when shooting cars because it makes things more dramatic and exaggerated. You can use a number of different tools to correct the distortion if you don't like it. I had a Tamron 17-35 F2.8-4 XR Di and I sold it after I borrowed a Canon 10-22.

here's the effect I mean -

http://www.streetfire.net/2006/nopi/photos/pages/wallpaper/IMG_2005.jpg

[Brady]

10-22 get my vote....bad assly awesome lens...yes bad assly awesome.....