Comparism Canon 10-18 vs. 17-40
I allready announced in my article about the [post id= 606]Canon EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6[/post], to compare this lens against the Canon 17-40/4.0 L for fullformat cameras.
Now some of might say that this comaprism is not really fair, because the Canon 10-18mm is optmized for APS-C sensors, while the 17-40 is a fullformat lens. In addition there are differences in the maximum aparture and of course the price tag.
The Canon 17-40/4.0 L is the least expensive UWA L lens, which are available for fullformat cameras. Too me it’s the most used lens in architecture or landscape photography. But since i decided to carry a smaller euqipment bag on my next vacation only with the 7D, the 10-18mm, a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the 100mm L Macro this comparism is essential to me.
I mounted both cameras on a tripod and compared the 10mm to the 17mm and 18mm against the 29mm setting of the 17-40. The later one is not precisly to choose on the zoom ring.
Take a look on the comaprism on the the shortest focal length. The 2 two rows show the center of the image and the upper right corner for the Canon 10-18mm and the second 2 rows shows the same for the Canon 17-40mm.
The Canon 17-40 has the image not being very sharp in the corners. But comparing the resolution for the Canon 10-18 is almost on the same level. The sharpness in the center of the image is even too em. Normally i wouldn’t close the aparture on a crop camera beyond f 8 or so, since there is a reduction of sharpness with very small apartures. But for comparism reasons i completed the aparture row.
Now there is the comaprism for the longest focal length on the Canon 10-18 and at roughly 29mm on the Canon 17-40L. We have to consider the at 18mm the maximum aparture is 5.6 on the Canon 10-18mm and almost every lens will increase overall sharpness by closing the aparture 1 or 2 steps. And even here the 18mm are useable with 5.6.
As a result of this comaprism we can state that the Canon 10-18mm is a very good ultra wide angle lesn with a very fair price tag. Photozone gets the same results regarding optical quality.
ciao tuxoche
Hey nice review.. I’m thinking on buying this ultra wide 10-18 ..but currently i also have the sigma 17-50 os hsm f2.8 which is pretty cool. you think it’s good to keep this with the 10-18 or trade this for the canon. im a landscaper and I’d like to have a good wide angle without needing to spend too much.
thanks
Jared
Hi Jared,
the Canon 10-18 is definitly a good lens and it is affordable too. I did most of the shots on my Tenerife vacation with this lens (http://belichtungs-zeit.net/2014/10/30/teneriffa-ein-urlaub-zum-abhaengen/). I you are comfortable with the Sigma lens i wouldn’t trade it, because otherwise you’re probably missing the focal length range from slight wideangle to small telephoto
Were both 10-18 and 17-40 shot on the same crop body, or you used full frame with 17-40?
Hi Marko,
i sued a full frame body for the 17-40 shots, using a crop camera would improve the results in the corners
Can i ask you also what bodies were user? I suppose that were 100% crops? I’m trying to determine can i use 10-18mm and crop body for a real estate purposes… I thought full frame body and 17-40 will give superior results overall, but i find it only slightly better at medium corners. What is your opinion on 10-18mm for real estate?
Hi Marko,
the 10-18mm is a very good lens concerning the price. If you only need the images for web presentations it should be good enough closing down aparture a little bit.
Which is better for low light handheld? The 10-18 with its IS on crop, or the 17-40L on a full frame with better iso performance and bigger aperture?
For lo light handheld i would prefer the 10-18mm because of the built-in IS
WOW I see a quite noticeable difference between this lenses. But behind the 17-40 is a fullframe camera.
This comparison is useful for all the folks can’t afford a 1000€ 6D body and a 600€ 17-40 lens = 1600€.
A 500€ 200D and a 200€ 10-18 STM is a much more affordable combo = 700€.
But to be fair, award wining photos won’t be possible with the cheaper option. When you make a large print or pixel-peep the more expensive combination is obviously better.
I love to look at stunning landscapes at 500px or Flickr but with a budget camera I will never be able to achieve this quality.
the 17-40 might be slightly better… and I have a full frame camera. But for my purposes I use a rebel plus the 10-18, b/c what I’m using it for is landscapes and cityscapes when hiking or out and about, and I just don’t want to carry a full frame or tripod for this. If you match the 17-40, put it on a tripod, put it on a 20 + mp full frame, then yes it will be better, but not THAT much better. The 17-40 is not one of the best L lenses… put something like a sigma 20 art, 17mm tse, or 16-35 f4l on the full frame, then we are talking.
Hi,
thank you for your comment. I did a comparism with the Canon 16-35/4.0 (https://tuxoche.com/2015/09/10/group-picture-with-4-lenses/) and of course the 16-35 is a very good lens.