10-22MM - 17-58MM

[jenkinsd 0]

I am trying to decide if it is worth buying the 10-22MM lense for my dives in the maldives.

 

I just got off the phone to BH, and they said you could not get better than the 10-22

 

I am trying to figure out, if I use use the 10-22MM at 17MM, is the quality any better than the 17-85MM at 17MM?

 

I know the 17MM is a good all purpose lense. But apart from the width, is the clarity any better on the 17MM

 

Thanks

 

 

Danny

[james 0]

Hi Danny,

 

I have used both lenses briefly. The lens sharpness will be about the same at 17mm, however, the 17-85 is a Image Stabilized (IS) lens, and it's a wider range zoom. I think it's a good mid-range zoom and an excellent topside lens because of the IS.

 

If I could only get one lens for underwater use, I'd get the 10-22 as it's indespensible underwater.

 

Cheers

James

[dmoss 0]

Danny,

I used both lenses in Bonaire and preferred the 10-22 for underwater use. As James said, the 17-85 is a good topside lens. For underwater wide angle, the extra range down to 10mm was very nice. The 10-22 is also 1 stop faster than the 17-85 at the wide end (f3.5 compared to f4). I noticed some corner softness at 10mm behind the Ikelite 6" dome, but from 12mm on up it was better. I'm considering the 8" port, but haven't made up my mind yet.

[kriptap 0]

When I had my Canon 20D I used the 17-85 a lot underwater and loved it, I also liked the 10-22 so if you can afford it don't miss out on the 17-85 to, some example of both ends of the 17-85:

 

 

 

[allen 4]

If you look at the specs for the glass in the 10-22 it is the same glass that Canon uses on their L lens. So in theory it should be very similar to Canon's 16-35 L lens with the difference being that the 10-22 is a full stop slower. Because of the full stop may be more like the 17-40 because it is a f4.0. Either way because the 10-22 is an EF-S lens it did not get the L label but under the hood it is. The glass used in the 17-85 is Canon std. glass.

 

Cheers,

 

Allen