[Rob Barron]

Ok, here's my situation and I would like opinions from people who have experience of the lenses I am considering and general opinions.

I currently have the Canon 17-40mm f4 L series lens and the Canon 28-70mm f2.8 L series lens.
I would sell these on here or Ebay for approx: £275 and £350 respectively

I am considering selling both and buying the Canon 10-22mm lens (£360) and the Canon 24-105mm f4 IS L series lens (£555).

So, what to do? The way I see it is this: if I make the change I will have a wider lens but not L series (but I gather from on here and reading reviews it is a very good lens) to increase my options at that end. I would also have a greater range of IS L series lenses because I would be covered from 24mm through to 400mm (with my 100-400mm IS L). This would cost me about £300 of cash after selling the others.

Do you think I would gain from this? Is the 24-105mm IS L lens good? I will be losing a stop as my 28-70mm is f2.8 and the 24-105mm is f4. I don't think that will prove a major problem for me really.

Anyone got experience of the lenses I am thinking about that can do a reasonable comparison betwen those and the ones I would sell?

Cheers,
Rob

[Whipspeed]

I've just bought the 17-40 and love it for landscapes, not used a huge amout yet, but will be. I've also got the 24-105 and have had it for about a year now and it is a really versatile lens, sharp, good colour and for taking out for a day brilliant. I've also used it for some cycle racing, so the f4 can handle speedy subjects.
I don't have the Canon 10-22, I've got the sigma version and it is good, but I really only tend to use it for internal shots for house sale brochures and at the really wide end, there is some fall off. Perhaps keep the 17-40 and get the 24-105, there is some crossover, it just depends how much you will use the 10mm?

[Dave]

Can't comment on your lenses, but I think you will enjoy 10mm Just love my Sigma 10-20mm

[Rob Barron]

Both helpful comments there. Dave, what do you find yourself using the 10mm for most? I think of it for such things as buildings and landscapes, especially when I want to get an exaggerated foreground, a bit like I did with my Whernside Viaduct shot but I had to achieve that in post-pro.

I am interested in the Sigma as it is £100 cheaper than the Canon, though the f5.6 at 20mm seems a bit restrictive. That is about 0.7 stops less than the Canon version which might not be a whole lot in the grand schemes but I'll be interested in what you think.

Does anyone have experience of both the Sigma and the Canon 10-20/22mm lenses?

Cheers,
Rob

[silkstone]

I have the Canon 10-22 and 17-40. They are both good but in terms of IQ the 17-40 is better and I wouldn't part with it. The advantage of the Canon 10-22 over some of the third part superwides is low barrel distortion - I'm not sure that the sharpness is much different from the Sigma.

Just for info, I have a gap in the middle with just the 50mm f/1.8 between the 17-40 and the 70-300IS. That wouldn't have been considered an issue when primes ruled, and it doesn't bother me now (I actually sold the 28-135 because I wasn't using it).

The 24-105 is reckoned to be a good lens, but really designed to go with the 1D/5D and you're paying a lot for glass that you'll only use in the middle.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Rob Barron

. Dave, what do you find yourself using the 10mm for most? I think of it for such things as buildings and landscapes, especially when I want to get an exaggerated foreground, a bit like I did with my Whernside Viaduct shot but I had to achieve that in post-pro.

Would agree with you there. If I want to add some drama to the shot, then I often use 10mm. For example the follwing shot looked nothing at 17mm with my main lens. But suddenly with the 10mm had a bit more WOW factor .... especially what it does to the sky



& some more



All said though, you do need something very close in foreground to make it work at 10mm. If you can afford the extra for the Canon 10-22mm lens, it seems to make sense

[Sonsey]

I can't really advise on the Canon 24-105L IS other than to say it's a lens that I will hopefully have in my kit bag sometime in the future, the quality of results I've seen from it have been top notch.

However I have spent a weekend with a Canon 10-22 borrowed from a friend as I was intending to buy a lens in that range and wanted to try it out.

Firstly, build quality is not in L territory, I found it to feel a bit plasticy to me, not terrible at all but I'm sure it would be a let down to someone used to Canon's professional range.

Secondly, image quality is good but once again not in L territory. It fairs better in this aspect than the latter but I think you will still notice a difference between it and your 17-40.

To sum it up, while I was happy with the image results the build quality let the side down for me, especially considering it's price. This basically resulted in me going for the Sigma 10-20 instead due to better build quality, comparable image quality and better price... a choice I'm still happy I made.

Here's my favourite shot taken with the Canon 10-22 from that weekend (it also happens to be one of my favourite personal shots... you can read into that what you will )

[stepheno]

I have the 24-105, top lens, hardly off my camera, constant f4, L quality, excellent walkabout lens.

[Markulous]

Another vote for the Sigma 10-20mm

[Whipspeed]

Looking at these, I must use my sigma 10-20 more.

[Rob Barron]

Wow guys, looking at those shots you have included has definitely convinced me I need a 10mm lens, there are some belters there. I had seen some of them before but not really thought about what lens you had used. Brilliant stuff and I am definitely sold on getting one, whether it be Canon or Sigma. Although i am a dedicated Canon man, if I am not getting any difference bewteen the Sigma and the Canon then I'll save money and go for the cheaper option. Very difficult to do a comparison with pics online but clearly both lenses provide superb output, even if not at L series quality.

Thanks for the endorsement of the 24-105mm lens as well Stephen, that helps and definitely looks like it would make sense to change to that from my 28-70mm lens despite dropping a stop. I don't use it a whole lot at wide aperture except for portaits and I have my nifty-fifty for that with its f1.8 aperture.

All your comments and pictures have helped me enormously so thanks for all the input, very much appreciated

Cheers,
Rob

[fionaB]

im not reading this thread cos i want a wide angle..... im NOT reading it honestly..... damn.........

words jumped infront of my eyes!

Fi