Welcome to Photo.net: A Community of Photographers

Canon's New EF-S lenses:
EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 USM

by Bob Atkins

 

EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM

The first, and to me possibly the most interesting, of the new EF-S lenses is the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM. 10mm is the widest lens available for a small sensor DSLR. Sigma make a 12-24/4.5-5.6  EX DG  (with full frame coverage) and Nikon have an AFS 12-24 mm f/4 G ED IF DX (with coverage for their 1.5x sensor). Of course the angle of view with a 10mm lens on a small sensor body will be the same as a 16mm lens on a full frame 35mm camera, so 10 mm is wide, but not "super wide", since 14mm lenses are available for full frame cameras, and there's even a 12mm lens with full frame coverage made by Voightlander for Leica rangefinder (non-SLR) cameras.

The EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM isn't a "cheap and nasty" consumer lens. It has three aspheric elements as well as one super-UD glass element. It also has a ring USM with full time manual focus and a distance scale. The street price should be around $800. Not cheap by any standard. The Sigma 12-24 sells for around $670, and Nikon users get to pay $1000 for their 12-24 lens.

I was a little disappointed that the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM was so expensive. I'd hoped that maybe Canon could have made a lens like this for $300 or so, but I guess it's not easy making a lens of such a short focal length, and a 2.2x zoom at that. Canon seem to have gone for the "upscale" market with this lens, rather than the "low end" market at which the original EF-S 18-55 was targeted. Personally I'd have taken a small hit in performance for a large drop in price - but that's just me! At $800, if you buy one you have to hope that Canon will stick with the 1.6x sensor size for a while, since this lens isn't going to fit on any film body, or even any of the "pro" EOS 1 digital models.

It's interesting to note that despite the use of multiple aspherics and super UD glass, this lens doesn't get an "L" designation or a red ring! If it were an EF lens, it would probably be designated "L". Class discrimination? No "L" for EF-S lenses? Who knows. Not that it matters. It's how well it works, not what's written on it that counts. Only time (and testing) will tell on that score.

If you want a REAL wide lens you don't have a lot of choices. The Sigma at $670 is cheaper and it will work on full frame 35mm bodies (film or digital), at least right now. Sigma has had problems in the past when new EOS bodies are introduced, their lenses often needing  "rechipping" to work with the new bodies. The only real alternative for a "superwide" is a 14mm prime ($1800 from Canon, $900 from Sigma). Of course if you don't need to go very wide, the new EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM ($600) or the EF 17-40/4L USM ($700, but with full frame 35mm coverage) are alternatives. On an EOS 20D or Digital Rebel, a 17mm lens gives you the same view as a 28mm lens on a full frame 35mm body

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

The second most interesting lens is the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Again Canon have targeted this lens to the higher end of the market with both image stabilization (IS) and a ring type USM motor with full time manual focus (FTM). The street price expected to be around $600. The EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM on a 20D or Digital Rebel has almost exactly the same coverage as the EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM has on a 35mm body - though the EF 28-135 sells for only $400. Since the EF-S lens has to go quite a lot shorter and uses and aspheric element, it's not surprising the price is higher. Interestingly it's almost exactly the same size as the EF 28-135, being just 5% shorter in length and 12% lighter in weight. Though the lens is set to sell for $600, Canon indicated in their 20D press release that if sold with a 20D body the combined price would be $2000. Since the 20D body should sell for $1500, this means you're getting the lens for $500.

Looks like a very useful lens and image stabilization is certainly improves pictures shot handheld at slow shutter speeds. The EF 28-135 IS USM has long been one of my most used lenses, both on film bodies and on my 10D (where it give the same range as a 45-216mm lens would on a full frame body). If you bought the EF-S 10-22/3.5-5.6 USM, it might make more sense to pair it with the EF28-135 IS USM than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. You'd lose the range from 22 to 28mm (35 to 45mm full frame equivalent), but you'd gain the range from 85-135mm (135-216mm full frame equivalent) - and save between $100 and $200. In my opinion the gain on the long end is worth the small wideangle gap (which you could fill with a nice, small, light, fast EF 24/2.8 if it really bothered you!)

EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 USM

The third, and probably least interesting, lens is the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 USM. This seems to be the same as the lens sold with the Digital Rebel as part of a kit, but it now has a micro-USM motor (not a ring USM). I can't say I've ever been a big fan of the micro-USM motor lenses. Typically they don't have full time manual focus (the 50/1.4 is an exception), and they never seem all that much faster or quieter than the micro-motor lenses. The bigger difference with the original version of this lens is that it's now sold without a camera attached! You can't buy the original EF-S 18-55 without a Rebel body. The price has gone up from $100 (with the Rebel body) to $170. That seems a bit much for the micro-USM lens, but I guess marketing costs are higher if the lens isn't bundled with the body. From data in the Canon press release on the 20D, it looks like you can still get this lens for $100 if you buy the two together though!

Since Canon don't mention any optical changes, it's reasonable to assume that the lens will perform identically to the non-USM version, which you can see on my EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 lens review page.

Lens Specifications

The following table summarizes the avialable information on these three new lenses

  Full frame 35mm equivalent AF motor Aspheric Elements Weight (oz) Length Price $ Filter
EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 16-35 Ring USM w/FTM Yes 13.6 3.5" $799 77mm
EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS 28-135 Ring USM w/FTM Yes 15.5 3.6" $599 67mm
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 29-88 Micro
USM
No (?) 6 2.5" $169 58mm

NOTE: These lenses can ONLY be mounted on the Canon EOS Digital Rebel (EOS 300D) and the Canon EOS 20D. They will NOT fit the Canon D30/D60/10D, 1D, 1D Mk II or 1Ds or on any Canon EOS film body.

 

Canon Press Release

The following information was taken from the Canon Press Release:

LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y. Aug. 19, 2004 - Canon broadens its EF-S-type lens offerings to include three new wide-angle zoom lenses. The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM zoom lenses will be available this fall for estimated street prices of $799, $599 and $169, respectively.

Particularly among advanced amateur and professional photographers, there has been a growing need for affordable zoom lenses that support true wide-angle and ultra-wide-angle photography. Canon initially responded to this market demand in August of 2003, when it announced the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens. This lens was launched in conjunction with the EOS" Digital Rebel", which has subsequently become the most popular digital SLR to date in terms of units sold, according to NPD Market Research. Now, to provide EOS Digital Rebel camera and EOS 20D camera users with a truly comprehensive lens system, Canon has expanded its EF-S lens offerings with 3 new models.

By reducing the distance from the rear of the lens to the focal plane and reducing the size of the image circle to match the size of the APS-C imaging sensor used in digital SLRs such as the EOS 20D camera and Digital Rebel camera, Canon's EF-S lenses reduce the size, weight and cost of wide-angle lenses for these cameras while at the same time producing high image quality with superb resolution and contrast at all focal lengths.

"With the expansion of our EF-S lens offerings, we continue Canon's tradition of providing professional photographers and amateur enthusiasts with the most innovative, peak performance lenses available," said Yukiaki Hashimoto, senior vice president and general manager of the consumer imaging group at Canon U.S.A., Inc., a subsidiary of Canon Inc. (NYSE: CAJ). "These new wide angle zoom lenses provide phenomenal flexibility, remarkable results and are invaluable additions to the camera bags of travel, nature and other 'on the go' photographers."

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Zoom Lens
This exciting new zoom lens provides ultra wide-angle coverage to the EOS 20D camera and Digital Rebel camera shooter. Equivalent to a 16-35mm zoom for a 35mm film camera, it offers excellent performance and optics designed from the ground-up for digital SLR use. Excluding fisheye lenses, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens has the shortest minimum focal length ever offered for interchangeable lens digital SLRs with APS-C image sensors.

Photographers will achieve consistently excellent image quality throughout the zoom range of this lens because of its 3 Aspherical elements and 1 Super-UD element in a 13-element optical formula. A ring-type ultrasonic focusing motor (USM) provides fast and silent AF along with full-time manual focus. Minimum focusing distance is 9.5 inches for breathtaking close-ups. The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM lens is relatively light and compact at 3.5 inches in length and a weight of 13.6 oz. The new lens accepts 77mm filters and can be fitted with an optional bayonet-mount lens hood.

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Zoom Lens
This new EF-S lens brings true wide-angle to telephoto coverage to EOS 20D camera and Digital Rebel camera photographers. It features Canon's Image Stabilization system, allowing safe hand-held photography at shutter speeds up to three steps slower than otherwise possible. And of course, it's optically optimized for digital SLRs. A ring-type USM delivers fast and silent auto focus, as well as full-time manual focus when in the AF mode.

The EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens provides a 5x zoom ratio and an angle of view equivalent to a 27-136mm lens on a 35mm camera. The new lens also uses a glass-molded aspherical lens element with aspherical surfaces on both sides for superb image quality throughout the entire zoom range and it features a closest focusing distance of 12 inches at all focal lengths. The EF-S 17-85mm IS lens is 5% shorter and 12% lighter than the EF 28-135mm IS lens and accepts 67mm filters.

EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM Zoom Lens
This is the USM version of the popular EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens that is available in kit form with the EOS 20D camera and Digital Rebel camera. Both lenses have an angle of view equivalent to a 29-88mm lens on a 35mm camera. Weighing in at just 6 oz. and measuring only 2.5 inches in length, the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM produces exceptional image quality in an ultra-compact package. The new lens accepts 58mm filters and features Canon's exclusive Micro USM II focusing motor technology for swift and silent AF.

 

Where to buy the new Canon EF-S lenses

Purchasing through the following links helps to support photo.net.
In our experience Amazon.com offers great service, is trustworthy and has a generous 30 day return policy. They also have excellent partners that offer competitive prices.

FEATURED AMAZON.COM MERCHANTS
Product:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs
List Price:
$799.99
VendorAvailabilityPriceBuy via Amazon
Amazon.com Usually ships in 24 hours$689.95 More info or
Adorama Camera Usually ships in 1-2 business days$710.00 More info or
17th Street Photo Usually ships in 1-2 business days$710.00 More info or
J&R Music and Computer World Usually ships in 1-2 business days$829.99 More info or
RitzCamera Usually ships in 1-2 business days$829.99 More info or
Product:
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLR's
List Price:
$599.99
VendorAvailabilityPriceBuy via Amazon
Amazon.com Usually ships in 24 hours$506.02 More info or
Adorama Camera Usually ships in 1-2 business days$515.00 More info or
Calumet Usually ships in 1-2 business days$515.99 More info or
17th Street Photo Usually ships in 1-2 business days$515.00 More info or
J&R Music and Computer World Usually ships in 1-2 business days$509.88 More info or
RitzCamera Usually ships in 1-2 business days$599.00 More info or

All original text is (©) Copyright 2004   Robert M. Atkins (www.bobatkins.com)   All Rights Reserved

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



Ray Negus , August 26, 2004; 04:32 A.M.

Thanks Bob.

Just a typo fix: The 10-22 is f/3.5 to f/4.5, not f/5.6. I want my extra half stop at the long end, dammit. ;-)

Frank de Kleuver , August 26, 2004; 06:58 A.M.

Mayby there is some hope for 10D users who were waiting for this lens that the EF-S 10-22/3.5-5.6 USM can be as easely modified just as the Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6. But for 800 dollars who dares? The 20D is a step forward but at this point not enough gain for me to sell my 10D.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

Frank

Olivier GALLEN , August 26, 2004; 09:52 A.M.

Probably not for the 10-22mm.
If you check the Optical design of the 10-22mm (middle of the page) you will notice that the rear lens goes beyond the usual EF end, into the new extension => don't expect to be able to cut this part and mount this lens into the 10D, D60, D30 unfortunately...
It MAY be feasible for the 17-85, though...

Olivier

Bob Atkins , August 26, 2004; 11:43 A.M.

Ray - thanks for point out the aperture error. I've fixed it. An extra 1/2 stop never hurts!

Fabian Gonzales , August 26, 2004; 07:24 P.M.

The 28-135 IS also features an aspherical element, so the 28-135 and the 17-85 look to be very similar in optical design and quality. The higher price is probably just due to the fact that it's a newer model.

As for the 10-22, it might not have the L designation, but does it at least have the L build quality, given the $800 we get to pay? I also hope the new 17-85 is better built than the existing 28-135, which is quite wobbly and fragile.

Keong Lim , August 26, 2004; 08:51 P.M.

Hi Bob,

The PowerShot Pro1 shows that Canon isn't averse to making non-EF L-series lenses. Perhaps the difference is in the use of fluorite, rather than just the aspherics and Super UD elements. Here's a quote from DPReview in Phil Askey's Pro1 review:

"This is the first time Canon have designated a digital camera lens with the "L-series" label, normally reserved for professional quality SLR lenses. Apparently this lens can carry this mark because it has a combination of both UD (ultra-low dispersion) and fluorite lens elements."

I wonder how much of a market there would be for EF-S L-series lenses anyway?

Bob Atkins , August 26, 2004; 11:26 P.M.

"L" is just a label. Don't get hung up on it.

There are "L" lenses with no fluorite or aspheric elements (EF400/5.6L). It's a matter of aspherics and/or fluorite and/or UD glass.

Canon could have called the 10-22 and "L" lens if they'd wanted to and it would have been perfectly consistant with other "L" lenses. They chose not to.

A rose by any other name...

David Vatovec , August 27, 2004; 04:44 A.M.

I don`t think so Bob. Is the barrel of the lens metal? Is it sealed against adverse weather condition? i don`t think it deserves an "L" designation. Besides i don`t know of any "L" lens in that price range (USD 800,00), i think the cheapest "L" lens at present is the 135 f2 and it goes for 900 USD at B&H.

Bruce Murphy , August 27, 2004; 05:54 A.M.

Last time I checked, molded aspheric elements didn't automatically count as exotic enough to qualify a lens for the L designator. The 10-22 seems like a fairly consumer sort of lens, perhaps these two points have combined?

David Vatovec , August 27, 2004; 06:40 A.M.

Uh sorry - forgot about the EF 200 f2.8L which should sell for approx. 700 USD! But i think the quality of construction is way above the 10-22 - and has been around from allmost the beggining of EF mount.

Mike Dodd , August 27, 2004; 09:02 A.M.

Any idea on the optical design of the 17-85mm lens and how it copes with close-ups? The 28-135mm has a very strange design that means as you get closer at the 135mm end of the zoom the focal length changes so when you are at the closest then the lens behaves as a 50mm NOT 135mm i.e. the magnification is much less than you would expect so it is hopeless for photographing things like insects. This is a fairly common problem with zoom lenses but the 28-135 is an extreme example, just hope the 17-85 is better.

Dhiren .. , August 27, 2004; 10:52 A.M.

David, 70-200 f4 L & 17-40 f4 L are also around $700/-.

Ilkka Nissila , August 28, 2004; 03:38 P.M.

No advantage for teles.

Ei Katsumata , August 28, 2004; 04:12 P.M.

If you bought the EF-S 10-22/3.5-5.6 USM, it might make more sense to pair it with the EF28-135 IS USM than the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.

I agree. But the one thing I miss about my 35mm film body is being able to travel light with only one lens: my 28-135 IS. But since going digital, I've found the need to carry at least two lenses - the 28-135 IS and the Sigma 12-24. It's made my lightweight setup not so lightweight, as the 28-135 IS (x1.6)is not wide enough for me.

The 17-85 IS seems quite appealing to me for an all around lens. I'd like to make my bag light again, but I'm not sure if it's worth $600.

The new 10-22 lens sound appealing to me to. I wonder if it's smaller and lighter than Popeye (Sigma 12-24)... I'd assume so, as it's an EF-S lens. Probably sharper as well (Popeye is quite soft, though distortion is practically non-existant). Hmmm, if the 10-22 has little to no distortion, I may have to get that lens too...

CS Chua , August 29, 2004; 08:15 A.M.

A 10/22 is an excellent extension to 300D user with an 18/55.

Hoping Canon will make an EFS or two to cover the range of 85-400mm with IS. Perhaps some opinion of what EFS lens Canon should or will make next. I have an EFS18-55 and EF55-200. However an EFS "lens range" from 10 to 400 would be delighful.

Ilkka Nissila , August 29, 2004; 10:05 A.M.

The 100-400L IS does exist already and it has a good reputation. So team it up with the 17-85 EF-S IS and you're set to go.

John Larson , August 30, 2004; 05:22 P.M.

Doesn't the additon of another format (ie the1.6x sensor size) to the EOS system defeat the purpose and advantages of having the system in place in the first place?

Like the article has stated the full 35mm format cameras (digital and film) can't use these lens (I'm sure they are great and I'm sure that owners of the smaller format enjoy having these lenses). To me this weakens the EOS system as a system. A good system would allow me to use all the lenses with all of the cameras. I'll probably get some flak for this, but I hope the other format doesn't get popular or good support from Canon.

Erb Duchenne , September 01, 2004; 03:29 A.M.

I think making additions don't weaken Canon's standing. It does, however, strengthen the 1.6x crop cameras' standing.

But is the 18-55 USM a new lens? I thought, although only available in Japan, that it was launched when the 300D/Rebel/Kiss was.

Luke Chippindall , September 01, 2004; 02:54 P.M.

Canon probably don't need any other EF-S lenses, now that the wide angle gap has been closed. Sure it is quite an expensive way to close it, but Canon probably rightly decided that anybody who needs wider than 28mm is probably a serious photographer, and therefore could ante up $800 for the new 10-22. For most consumer users, 28mm should be wide enough, and the existing 18-55 or the new 17-85 IS one should suffice. As a 'reference', see Mike Johnson's SMP article on focal lengths:

http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column57/index.html

Sure, I'm a little frustrated that my 24-85mm doesn't give me the extra wide angle on my 300D, when compared with how it works on my 50e body. But if I really need that extra 4mm, then I'll just use my 50e and film, and get the negs scanned in.

Dedicated EF-S is not needed at the long end, since normal EF do the job. Macro are probably OK as well, although I'm no expert. Most macro photographers probably like the extra 1.3 or 1.6 they get with the smaller sensors. Tilt and shifts... no way. It you have a real need for these, then you are probably a pro photographer, and can probably justify a full size sensor DSLR.

Andrew Robertson , September 03, 2004; 03:47 A.M.

It has been noted many times that there wouldn't be any point in making EF-S lenses in longer focal lengths. I did at one time hold the opinion that EF-S degrades the system as a whole, but since I thought more about the lenses and their target application I'm not so sure. Canon is basically stating that they 1.6 crop is here to stay, and backs up that statement by releasing high quality lenses.

I am now considering a 20D primarily to take advantage of the new mount and lenses.

raymond hamilton , September 12, 2004; 04:07 A.M.

How much smaller would a 600mm f/4 IS USM EF-S be? If you beat the bush photographing wildlife how many pounds lighter would your outfit be?

Vladimir Graizer , September 15, 2004; 03:43 P.M.

What is the most important to me is the quality of the new EF-S 17-85mm lens. Canon did a great job by producing such a diversity of lenses, but in mean time I am confused about their quality rating. What is the analogy from the quality point of view of this new lens?

Ilkka Nissila , September 17, 2004; 02:44 A.M.

I think the 600/4 would be maybe 100 grams lighter if it were made in the EF-S mount. Notice that the EF-S mount exists to allow the rear elements to enter the mirror box. If you look at your 600/4, you'll realize that the rear element is quite far away from the camera. Reducing the coverage won't help at all.

A. Mandelbaum , October 15, 2004; 05:13 P.M.

"Nikon users get to pay $1000 for their 12-24 lens." Okay, you asked for it. The Nikon has a constant f/4 aperture, and the Canon has an irritating variable aperture. Isn't that worth the 25% higher price tag on the Nikon? No? "[Y]ou have to hope that Canon will stick with the 1.6x sensor size for a while." Nikon's already committed to their "DX" size sensor, so I don't have to hope. Okay, now the 25% higher price tag makes sense.

Carl Smith , November 04, 2004; 11:52 P.M.

All this crying about whether Canon will stick with the 1.6 seems silly. I feel pretty confident that they will.

Macros on the smaller sensors do in effect magnify more. It's the same cropping issue as with everything else so in a roundabout way I'm looking forward to using my 100 2.8 USM macro on the 20D once I get one. I also want to get the 17-40 to give me wider angle and wideangle on film/full frame DSLRs.

Who wants to loan me money?

Peter Apostol , August 02, 2006; 03:23 A.M.

Although this link is inactive for some time I want to mention that a major drawback of the EF-S USM 17-85mm lens is that it has a tendancy to gather dust and particles through its zoom ring. It might be harsh to talk about bad build quality -since the photos it renders are very good- but having owned several cameras and zoom lenses this is the first time I have encountered this problem which is quite annoying. The worst part is that in order to remove the particles from within the lenses I need to unscrew the glued bolts under the lens cover and this is by far a daunting task that should not be done frequently since it may end up in scratching or damaging the lens.

michael kurtz , January 16, 2007; 01:51 A.M.

i'd totally recommend NOT getting the canon 17-85 image stabilized lens...the main reason being the distortion in image shape through most of the range other than at full 85mm...i've shot with the lens for years now and from the beginning have not been happy with it at anything but full macro, which it was a good performer at...the image stabilization was indeed phenomenal, but i shoot portrait/headshots and low light pinup shots in the 50 to 85mm range...the most distortion is in this range...nothing wrong with the lens calibration or anything like that, i had it checked, just not a good rendition as i had gotten with nikon and tamron lenses...just a difference in the glass...after three-four years of fighting the lens to get the beutiful shape rendition portraits i had from nikon and tamron lenses of the past, i just gave up on this lens and went to the tamron 28-75mm aspherical macro 2.8......the lower f stop neutralizes the advantage of image stabilization on the canon with it's 4 to 5.6 fstop range, but most importantis the beautiful holding of pure shape, which is the reason i shoot pictures...the canon fails the most important function of a lens, transferring what is before you onto your film or digital sensor without altering the pure beauty of the image shape in the real world...again, at macro shooting product photography, it did fine, but for anything else except perhaps at the full out 85mm setting, it had the perverse function of making me dislike the act of shooting...i'm with the tamron now and am back to getting beautiful, pure imagery...if one reads the comparisons between canon and tamron in reviews on this website, the technical data backs up tamron superiourity...my reveiws may be subjective, but i'm a professional who spent 13 years shooting photojournalism, and prior to that spent years at art center, otis and ucla as a fine art major...maybe my subjective radar to shape is a bit overtuned, but i totally dislike the canon lens, and that after 3-4 years of it and thousands of images shot...if you wanna buy it, you must like betting on longshots...no pun intended


Add a comment