16-35L or 10-22...advice needed because my sick head is playing games with me...

[jusap]

Here are the two scenarios I can suggest


first, get the 10-22 for your 40d to see how wide a wide angle lens can go. Then when the time comes that you'll be getting your FF body and decided to let go of your 40d, sell the 10-22 then get the 16-35L


or you can go straight to the 16-35L but mind you, the 16-35L on a crop body isn't really that wide. the good thing is you already have your lens. A friend of mine invested on lenses first. her first camera was a 350d and now that she's done setting up her lens lineup that she now upgraded to the 5DMKII. 16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 f4 ISU (it would have been better if she went for the trinity lens but she said she can't take the weight of the 70-200 2.8 ISU)





for me I'd go with the first option. at least while waiting for the time I can get my FF body, I would be able to test if having a UWA lens is good for me and my photographic needs. so that by the time you go FF, you're already decided if you want an UWA or go for the 24-70 2.8L because 24 is already wide for FF.

[Colin]

You know, I'm siding with getting an 'L' 16-35 f/2(or 17-40 f/4, after all, f/4 is fine for your telephoto, right?) at the same time you get your full frame. You'll have a bit of improvement in image quality over the 17-85, but you're not going to get much more functionality. It'll mostly be heavier and have nicer build. But, it's not really going to change what kind of pictures you can get. You'll just be able to print larger.


If you want wide angle right now, go with a temporary EF-S type lens, and consider the loss on resale as an extended rental.


I say this having done what you're thinking. I bought the 16-35mm (original)to go wider on my Rebel XT. I enjoyed it, but I was also using it to supplement my 28-135, so I actually got something more out of it. However, if I was going to go this route again, I would have bought the FF camera sooner and gone with the 17-40 to save the money, and probably bought the 24-105 only after I got the FF camera to take advantage of it, and kept the 28-135 in use a bit longer...


I don't think wickerprints was trying to be rude, but while I certainly understand your motivation, I think he has a point in terms of desire. The 'L' in less than telephoto scenarios provides far less benefit when you're not in the realm of full frame, because you're paying for a lot of what you can't use. At that point, you're parting with money more to have something than to actually use it.


Once you've got the FF, the 16-35 might be worth it, but until then,most of the expense is a down payment on where you want to be.


Anyway, just an opinion.

[Keith B]

I'm going to say go with something that will give you ultra-wide on the 1.6 crop for now. I couldn't offer anything as to which one though, I've never owned any of them.


But when you go FF definitely get the 16-35 II. I love this lens. I have used the 17-40 and I feel okay with $700 difference (I feel the 16-35 is reasonably priced and the 17-40 is just a great bargain). I didn't care for the feel of the 17-40, I actually like a heavier lens. The 16-35 just balances out well on the 5D II. I really find the 2.8 to be a necessity, even in decent light 4 doesn't blur the background enough on wides. I like to shoot scenic portraits at 35mm and f4 just does have the bite 2.8 does.


If all you were going to do was shoot landscape orarchitectural stuff I'd say 17-40 is fine but if you like people in the shot I'd highly recommend the 16-35.

[BES]

You know, I'm siding with getting an 'L' 16-35 f/2(or 17-40 f/4, after all, f/4 is fine for your telephoto, right?) at the same time you get your full frame.


..........


Once you've got the FF, the 16-35 might be worth it, but until then,most of the expense is a down payment on where you want to be.


Anyway, just an opinion.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Colin, thanks very much for your advice and opinion. I take all of them (postings from all posters) under consideration, weather I like them or not, at a given moment. I am not in a mad rush to part with my money so I can wait and decide what is best after a few rentals. I am fortunate to have friend with 16-35 who does not mind lending me his glass and I know already what I can do with it. What I do not know is, what I can do with 10-22, hence I decided to rent it. If I like it more, then I will buy it and use for as long as I can, I like all of your guys thinking. But if it is just not that much of a deal breaker for me after testing, I will go out and get the coveted FF and then just wait a bit and 16-35 or the other way round, not sure yet. And you are right, it is a hefty lens, but I am getting used to this and now when my 50mm is on camera it almost feels too light. I have to hit gym seriously before I can keep up with this hobby.


Thanks for your help, I always value it and appreciate your time to provide me with much needed advice.

[Sean Setters]

BES - Don't count out the Tokinas wide-angle lenses just yet. They cannot be used on a full-frame camera, but they're cheaper than the 10-22, have a constant aperture, and they are very well made (from what I can tell from the reviews). However, I must withhold final judgment until I get my second copy in. With my first copy I was really impressed with the images in which the center focus point was used. I should get my second copy tomorrow and then I'll be able to tell if not being able to use the outside focus points is a consistent problem. If it focuses as it should, it'll be one of my favorite lenses to use (largely because of the "fun" factor coupled with sharp image quality).


See if you can rent a Tokina or two. If the 12-24 f/4 would be wide enough for you (and fast enough), then it'd be a good lens to consider. If you don't need as much focal range, but need a wider aperture, then the 11-16 f/2.8 might be the way to go.

[BES]

BES - Don't count out the Tokinas wide-angle lenses just yet. They cannot be used on a full-frame camera, but they're cheaper than the 10-22, have a constant aperture, and they are very well made (from what I can tell from the reviews). However, I must withhold final judgment until I get my second copy in. With my first copy I was really impressed with the images in which the center focus point was used. I should get my second copy tomorrow and then I'll be able to tell if not being able to use the outside focus points is a consistent problem. If it focuses as it should, it'll be one of my favorite lenses to use (largely because of the "fun" factor coupled with sharp image quality).


See if you can rent a Tokina or two. If the 12-24 f/4 would be wide enough for you (and fast enough), then it'd be a good lens to consider. If you don't need as much focal range, but need a wider aperture, then the 11-16 f/2.8 might be the way to go.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Sean, I was thinking about it when i read your first post...I like the "transition" phase use of this lens at lower price. If it is producing IQ that is up to par than this may be another option. I am really not willing to compromise quality, I'd rather wait. I am not in a hurry, so I would be interested in your review when you get your lens. Thanks a bunch! I will also try renting it and compare with 10-22 from Canon. I do not need to go necessary to 10, I worry I would be taking pictures of my feet [:$]. But my top priority is to upgrade to FF.


Sean, thanks again for taking your time to give me your advice, as always I appreciate it immensely.

[EdN]

Here's my experience if it helps. My first DSLR was the original Digital Rebel with the 18-55. Loved the body but found out about the shortcomings of the kit lense really fast on critical shots. I looked around for a better replacement and what I ended up with was the 17-40 mm F4L. It has a smaller range than the kit lense but I got it partly because of that red ring and also the rave reviews I read about it here, at Fred Miranda, and photozone. It wasn't a cheap lense but what an improvement!


On a crop body like the 40D, I found it was a great walkaround lens, good for landscapes and short portraiture. Image quality, sharpness, and colors were excellent. I also used it for night shots and even without IS, I was getting great keepers shooting at ISO 400-800, F4, and hand held shooting down to about 1/6 sec. A lot of my friends and co-workers were amazed at some of those night/twilight shots.


Since then, I went full frame but my present interest is toward the long end so the 17-40 doesn't get used much. However, when I'm in a tight place, I pull it out put it on the full frame body and you'd be amazed in how much landscape it can suck in. The F4 aperature isn't all that bad anymore because you can always increase the ISO for full frame cameras and not have much of an image quality loss. On a 5D Mk II, you can jack up the ISO and not miss the IS at all. Just shoot wide if you can.


As you can see, I was/am quite pleased with my choice of the 17-40. It was great for a cropped body and I still use it with the FF body. My question to you is what don't you like about the 17-85? I've never used it before but I've read reviews that its okay but not noted for for high image quality. Do you dislike it for that or do you not like the zoom range? If you don't like the range of the 17-85, you're going to like the range of the 17-40 less, and you will lose the IS. If you want the image quality, the 17-40 delivers and you will have an upgrade path when you go FF.


In my case, I went for image quality (and got it) and even though it has no IS, it didn't affect me during my crop days or present FF days.

[BES]

My question to you is what don't you like about the 17-85? I've never used it before but I've read reviews that its okay but not noted for for high image quality. Do you dislike it for that or do you not like the zoom range? If you don't like the range of the 17-85, you're going to like the range of the 17-40 less, and you will lose the IS. If you want the image quality, the 17-40 delivers and you will have an upgrade path when you go FF.


In my case, I went for image quality (and got it) and even though it has no IS, it didn't affect me during my crop days or present FF days.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Ed, thanks for your advice, I will certainly consider it. I have never tried 17-40, never had it on my camera so I would have to see...


I do not dislike 17-85, it's a great lens, but in my current line up I seem to use 50mm quite a bit and then switch to my 70-200. Both have excellent IQ. I actually do not have THAT much need for super wide, but I would like to learn as I would like to try my hand with certain type of photos for which these lenses come handy. My friend has 16-35 and I borrowed it from him, I used both 17-85 and 16-35 and what can I say, I can see a bit of a difference in IQ, especially in some more challenging conditions. What I forgot to add, I had it mounted on his FF camera and on my 40D so I can see what difference it makes. But the most important thing is....I am planning on switching to FF. I am not a snob, although it is nice to have an L lens that offers an excellent IQ, if not for desire to switch to FF, I would acquire 10-22 tomorrow. I am not in a rush, I feel I can wait a bit, so I am taking all these great advices in and doing research and I am going to rent 10-22 to see how I like it.


Thanks again Ed, I much appreciate taking your time to respond to my question []

[jusap]

If you're not that in a hurry and if you want to try out taking shots with a UWA lens of your own then go for the 10-22. It's almost the same with the 16-35L on FF in terms of focal range. IQ is really admirable too.


But if you're saying you can borrow a 10-22 or a 16-35 with a FF body, then it's better if you continue borrowing for a while so that you can save up for a FF body that you wanted. The only hassle for you would be asking permission from your friends :P Or rent.


Just as I have said, all of this is just for you to know if you want a UWA lens in you're line-up or not. It's better this way than shell-out your money on something you're not sure of. If you're rich then I think it wouldn't be a problem then. hehehe

[richscorer]

I had the same dilema year or so ago, i had a 400d and wanted to go wide. I also had a 24-105l as my standard zoom.


I saved and bought a second hand 5dmark2 and was amazed at the difference of full frame made to my 24-105l. But to be fair i probably would buy a mark one with the benefit of hindsite and put the rest of the cash into more 2.8 or better glass.


Last week i purchased the 16-35 mk2 and to be honest i am finding it hard to use, its almost too wide. The struggle is composition and how to reframe to keep things out of the frame and just how close you need to get to objects.


I have only read one good article on getting the best from super wides and am looking for more. I would love to here suggestion. Also 16-35 your going to need bigger filters (its all money).


To be fair from what you have said about your current lens selection you useing a 50mm at 80 mm and a zoom at 112-320mm so more then likely you should go for a 17-40 f4 as you state your not used f2.8 and then pick up a 5d mark then you can have your cake and eat it.


Anyway just my 2 pennys worth.