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

<p>I want one of these and have read all the glowing reviews, but I am worried because of all of them I see on ebay. There's hundreds of them. Most people use the excuse that they went to a full frame digital SLR, but is it possible that there are so many people upgrading? Convince me to go ahead and get one. They sell for just over $600 used.</p>

<p>I would not attempt to convince you to buy one on ebay; it's for you to decide whether that's a good idea. I can add my voice to the positive reviews you have seen. As UWA zooms go, the 10~22 is really very good. There was a time when it was regarded as a close call between 10~22 on 20D/30D and 17~40 on 5D, with the balance in favour of FF, as you would expect, but not by all that much. However, 10~22 on 50D/7D against 17~40 on 5DII may be a comparison that is even more favourable to the 10~22, because until you stop it down quite a long way, the 17~40 at 17mm has poor corner performance on FF and the 5DII shows that up fairly mercilessly. Whereas the 10~22 holds up well at 10mm on the 50D (and, I assume, on the 7D).</p>

<p>I opted for the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, mainly for the faster aperture, but the Canon is highly rated. It is such a wide lens, maybe a lot of buyers decided they wanted more reach and opted for something in the 30mm and up range.</p>

<p>A lot of people probably do move to FF. I bought one on eBay about 8 months ago because I drooled over it for a long time. I was never so excited to get a lens. I sold it last month because I took about 5 pictures with it over the 8 month period. A lot of people love this lens and swear by it. It is a great lens, and can be very useful for some photographers, I just didn't happen to be one of them. I think a lot of people sell them because they don't use them. If you want it get it. If you love it, you'll have it. Worst case scenario, you decide it's not for you and you get your money back selling it, nothing lost. I actually sold mine for $60 more than I bought it.</p>

10-22 is a very good optic. surprisingly bright/sharp, very rich clear color. it doesn't, however, lend itself to a lot of usage. just too wide. it's a specialty lens. i suspect people get them, realize they don't really use them that much if at all, sell them.

<p>I've already got the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, maybe that's wide enough. I might be better off getting the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS USM?</p>

<p>Its a great lens but a specialty lens that only works on ASP-C, I would imagine thats why many of them are for sale.<br>

I had one and sold it as well ( went to full frame ) If you find 17 is not wide enough, if you shoot lots of landscapes it would be a good lens for you. The quality you get is on par with your 17-55. </p>

 

<p>It's more-or-less identical to the 16-35 focal length on full frame. Per the other responders, the majority are likely being sold by owners going to full frame. It's a very nice wide angle, quite sharp even in the corners.</p>

<p>Downsides (to nitpick): the somewhat slow, variable max aperture, and the 22mm cut-off, which can make for a lot of lens swapping when you need longer. It's the same as the 16-35 (on full frame) in this regard.</p>

<p>I've pretty much passed mine over to one of my sons since I switched to 5D.</p>

<p>I agree with the glowing reviews of the 10-22. I own one, as well as the 17-55 EF-S and 70-400 IS F4.0.</p>

<p>10-22 is invaluable for interesting landscape shots, as well as creative shots of all kinds. </p>

<p>I do have to say tho, the 70-200 F4 IS is a stunner! If I had to choose between the two and already owned the 17-55 I opt for the 70-200. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>PS </p>

<p>Throw in the relatively low cost of a 1.4 extender and you have 'another' zoom 98-280 before the crop factor! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the 70-200mm f/4 may be money better spent. I had the 10-22 and the 17-85 and I sold the 10-22 to get the 17-40 L. I figured I'd get better glass in the focal range I actually use. You may be one of the people that will use the 10-22 a lot, but I find that 17mm is wide enough for me on my APS-C camera. If I want to go wider, I stitch multiple photos, this gives you sharper and more detailed photos anyways that can be blown up bigger. But you'll never know whether you need it or not until you have it. Like I said, the resale value is very good, so you won't lose money.</p>

I bought one 3 years ago, but just began using it. It's a great little lens, very light and sharp, but I think way over-priced considering it's not an 'L' series. I purchase it when all I had was a cropped camera, but now I have full frame so it's not an issue.

 

You have to be careful with them too because of the Perspective Distortion. For an example see the second photograph in my PN portfolio. The house looks like a falling deck of cards, it is so distorted. You don't notice the distortion until you down load the picture, by then it's too late, which is what I find a little aggravating about this lens.

<p>Rent one for a weekend before you decide. I tried the Sigma 10-20 a few weeks ago (they didn't have a 10-22 available at the time), it's not easy shooting a lens that wide. I loved the experience and still have a super wide in my wish list but I agree it's not for everybody.</p>

<p>A great lens. I use mine less since I bought a 5D MKII but I still like it a lot. If I wanted a wide zoom for a cropped sensor body, I would not hesitate to buy one.</p>

<p>Instead of ebay, try this website, fredmiranda, or potn buy and sell website forum. I did have the lens and sold it when I sold my 20D. I now use fullframe 5D and own 16-35mm. I don't know about other people, but I did sell it because I don't have APS-C sensor camera anymore. I love the perspective from 10-22 on crop and 16-35 on FF.</p>

<p>I have to say the EF-S 10-22 is an excellent lens. Its IQ and color rivals the two L lenses that I own. As far as the number for sale on ebay, I can't say why that is. Obviously some of those are online stores selling used or trade-in items. I did see one that was bought for a specific job and is no longer needed. This is really a kind of specialty lens. Even at its longest, it is still quite wide and unless you need that, it won't get a lot of use. I certainly don't use mine much, but when I need it nothing else will work. </p>

<p>Wow, James, you sort of shifted gears from an UWA to a telephoto zoom. I think only you can really answer which one makes the most sense for your needs.</p>

<p>I'd have to agree with Robin Sibson. His advice here is usually spot on, and this time is no different. If you want an eBay deal, buyer beware. </p>

<p>I love the 10-22 on a crop body, but I don't use it that often. My wife and I were recently shooting a church interior. She was shooting the 10-22, I had the 16-35 on a crop body. When we got home, I liked her photos much better than mine (well, after all, she is a better photog than I). But I found myself constantly banging the stop at the 16 end, trying to get just the "right" composition.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is a great lens. I have the f/2.8 version and use it often. But this is a very different lens from the 10-22.</p>

<p>It is a very good lens, but as noted wide angles are not for everyone and are generally harder to use than other lenses.</p>

<p>It is a very good lens, but as noted wide angles are not for everyone and are generally harder to use than other lenses.</p>

<p>Great lens I love mine and will only give it up when I go FF. With that said I shoot mostly landscapes</p>

<p>I just purchased this lens not even a week ago and it's great. I wouldn't use it all the time, but compared to the 17mm you have now, 10 is sooooo much wider.<br>

If you like wide angle, you need this lens. I also have the 70-200 but the 2.8 IS and I use that lens much more than the 10-22. Depends what you want I guess.</p>

<p>I don't shoot an event without using my 10-22 in some way. Set to 10mm and held high over a wedding crowd or pressed up to the glass at the zoo. At 22mm is not a bad macro lens either. It is a fun lens! </p><div></div>

<p>Agree with many here. 10mm is tough to use for me as well, now selling my Sigma 10-20 simply because I never use it. But it all depends on the photographer.</p>

<p>I considered this lens versus getting a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and ended up getting the Tok. My primary reason was because of the fixed aperture at 2.8 and end up sacrifice a few more mm of higher FL. I haven't shot a Canon 10-22 but I was fairly surprised by the Tokina. Being a third-party vendor, it has very good build quality. Although the focus ring isn't USM or anything fancy, it does have a clutch mechanism that prevents you from doing the dreadful grinding noise as you accidentally turn the wrong ring.<br /> The lens is awesome, pictures turn out great and here's the little secret:<br /> <strong>This lens works on FF at 15mm and up. </strong> I shot several pictures on my Elan 2 film camera. I thought the effects on UWA was awesome on my XTi, but on a FF at 15mm was even better :) (11mm on XTi is only 17.6mm equivalent.)<br>

<img src="http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs217.snc1/8434_147519451880_619766880_3004012_3882677_n.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I used to have an EOS 3 with a 50mm f1.4, a 100mm f2, 17-35L f2.8, a 28-70L f2.8 and a 70-200L f2.8. I had to sell it all and get a G7 because of financial circumstances. I've been using the G7 for about 5 or 6 years and now I'm back into SLRs. I have a 50D with a EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM and I want to get a second lens. Due to suggestions in this thread, I'm thinking the 17mm might be wide enough, thus the 70-200mm f4 L IS USM want. I'm thinking these two lenses may be all I need.</p>

<p>BTW, I'm very happy with my EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM and have no intention of going to FF.</p>