11-01-2010, 01:14 PM
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288615327' post='3866']
Yakim,
I said 17-40L on FF is better than 10-22 on APS-C, I wasn't saying anything about 17-40L on APS-C (40D).
17-40L on APS-C actually underperforms, from my own experience, and can't be compared to the 10-22 anyway. On a 40D the 17-540L is a short standard zoom, while the 10-22 is an UWA zoom.. It is really only when used as an UWA zoom on FF that the 17-40L comes into its own.
BTW, try shooting a 10-22 with high contrast conditions, do the same with 17-40L, and tell me what you see ... You might be amazed.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I do not have the 17-40 anymore and I never tried it of FF. That said, I know that APS uses the best part of the lens (the center) and thus it is often the case where FF results are worse than APS.
Unfortunately, Israel is a very sunny country and high contrast is all too frequent. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> The 10-22 has never failed me. Not even once. I can't say that I ever seriously tested it (that is, other than for sporadic tests, where it excelled) but for about 3 years it has proven itself as a true gem. In some aspects (e.g. flare resistance and extremely low light AF) it outperforms even the mighty 17-55/2.8 IS. Yes, it is a bit less sharp in the corners but only when you really pixel peep i.e. look at 100% 18MP files in the corners.
In the few sporadic tests I've made (40D) both 17-55 and 10-22 were either equal or better than (the otherwise excellent) the 17-40. When I had the 1D I must confess that I really liked my F/4 trio (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) but ever since I switched to EF-S with the 40D I am much happier with my 10-22, 17-55 and 60. Even with the much more demanding 7D they still excel.
BTW, I recently bought the A33 and paired it with the Tamron 60/2. While IQ is very good, AF performance lag behind the slower 60/2.8. That, alongside with the incredibly uncomfortable ergonomics of the A33 means I am selling both and happily stay with my EF-S lenses. So, you see, it's not that I haven't tried other things. I did, and I found that the EF-S lenses either comparable or superior to both L and third party lenses.
Yakim,
I said 17-40L on FF is better than 10-22 on APS-C, I wasn't saying anything about 17-40L on APS-C (40D).
17-40L on APS-C actually underperforms, from my own experience, and can't be compared to the 10-22 anyway. On a 40D the 17-540L is a short standard zoom, while the 10-22 is an UWA zoom.. It is really only when used as an UWA zoom on FF that the 17-40L comes into its own.
BTW, try shooting a 10-22 with high contrast conditions, do the same with 17-40L, and tell me what you see ... You might be amazed.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I do not have the 17-40 anymore and I never tried it of FF. That said, I know that APS uses the best part of the lens (the center) and thus it is often the case where FF results are worse than APS.
Unfortunately, Israel is a very sunny country and high contrast is all too frequent. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> The 10-22 has never failed me. Not even once. I can't say that I ever seriously tested it (that is, other than for sporadic tests, where it excelled) but for about 3 years it has proven itself as a true gem. In some aspects (e.g. flare resistance and extremely low light AF) it outperforms even the mighty 17-55/2.8 IS. Yes, it is a bit less sharp in the corners but only when you really pixel peep i.e. look at 100% 18MP files in the corners. In the few sporadic tests I've made (40D) both 17-55 and 10-22 were either equal or better than (the otherwise excellent) the 17-40. When I had the 1D I must confess that I really liked my F/4 trio (17-40, 24-105, 70-200) but ever since I switched to EF-S with the 40D I am much happier with my 10-22, 17-55 and 60. Even with the much more demanding 7D they still excel.
BTW, I recently bought the A33 and paired it with the Tamron 60/2. While IQ is very good, AF performance lag behind the slower 60/2.8. That, alongside with the incredibly uncomfortable ergonomics of the A33 means I am selling both and happily stay with my EF-S lenses. So, you see, it's not that I haven't tried other things. I did, and I found that the EF-S lenses either comparable or superior to both L and third party lenses.