Canon 17-40 L - recommended?

[nomore]

I'm looking for a sharp lens for landscape photography. The Sigma 10-20 has already been recommended to me, but for £140 more, I could get the Canon 17-40 L.

Usually, L glass lenses are considered to be very sharp. Does anyone have experience with this lens or some full size examples?

It may be worth the extra cash as I've seen some reviews of the Sigma lens that say it's soft at the edges and has some light falloff.

 

[nomore]

They're totally different lenses. The 17mm will be a rather pedestrian 27mm on a 1.6x SLR whereas the 10mm will be 16mm. Much better suited for landscape photography.

If you don't want the sigma the Canon 10-22 is well worth checking out but is more expensive than the sigma.

I was told that the Canon 10-22 is a EFS mount. Unfortunately, I have a 10D which doesn't accept EFS lenses.

 

[nomore]

Back in the good old bad old days of 35mm a 24mm or 28mm lens was considered wide. I really don't know why there's this fascination with having to go wider

I mean, look at Bresson, most of his landscape work was taken with a 50mm or telephoto.

That's what I think... I need wide, but not necessarily mega wide.