Quality of the 22-55 f/4-5.6

Is the Canon 22-55 f/4-5.6 a good lens for a non-APS Canon SLR, in

my case an Elan 7? I noticed the ultra-wide 22 end and was thinking

this would be ideal for outdoor landscape photography considering

sometimes I want to go wider than my 28-105 and would like to have

the flexiblity to go to the standard focal lengths of 50-55. One of

its major attactions to me is that its only $105. It has a USM too!

The slow speed doesnt really matter to me since I'll be shooting

with a flash or outdoors. How is the image quality of this low

price lens and how is the build quality? Does it have a plastic

mount? Thanks.

I have neither owned or used this lens but I've used the 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM II which is very similar to it in terms of price and build(both have plastic mounts). Image quality is decent, good enough for 11"x14" prints, as long as you shoot between f/8-f/16. Take into account that the front element will extend during zoom and rotate during focusing.

Old answer, I haven't retested the links.

 

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm

To: JAM

Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 4:21 AM

Subject: Re: Canon 22-55 and 55-200

 

JAM wrote:

>

> I was thinking of buying the Canon 22-55 and the 55-200 zoom lenses to use

> on a Rebel 2000. These are lightweight and I think they were made for the

> APS cameras. They also work on the regular 35mm. Anybody ever used these

> two? How is the optical quality?

 

Pasted answer from someone's earlier question about the EF 22-55

lens

 

Marc Erik Herant wrote:

>

> Any opinions, bad or good, on the above lens?

 

A couple of photos with this lens at Allan Engelhardt's site:

 

http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality.html

 

If I remember correctly, photodo.com gave it a 2.8 rating (not

great), though I've liked the very few photos I've seen taken

with it.

 

It's one of the few Canon EF lenses I don't recall ever seeing a

review of. I haven't used it (I've got the EF 24-85).

---

Ran into this site yesterday. Bunches of not very good photos

with the 22-55, but if you check the other lens reviews, the

photographer seems incapable of taking many good photos with any

lens:

 

http://www.camera.canon.com.my/photography/nut/99issue/11topic/index.htm

 

Please note that I do not own the 22-55, nor have I ever seen one

in person, I do own the EF

24-85 lens, also designed for APS. There's no problem with the

Canon APS designed lenses on a EOS 35 mm body. Hope this helps,

 

Bill Jameson

I would suggest typing 22-55 in the Search box up top and read ALL the posts related (at least with 22-55 in the title). More than enough info there to make a decision.

It's not a bad lens, but can you find one? It was discontinued quite a while ago along with the EOS APS SLRs.

 

It's plastic of course, including the lens mount. The 20-35 is better, but larger and more expensive. You basically get what you pay for. If you can find a used 22-55 at a bargin price, I'd go for it, assuming you're not intending to make 16x20 prints. Note it takes 58mm filters, just like the 28-105, which can be a selling point.

I've owned one for a while, and it is an acceptable lens. I got it as the cheapest entry into the very wide angle end. It does its job fine and I got some good photos from it. I don't use it any longer as I now have a 24 f/2.8 instead. The 22-55 lens is all plastic, but feels fine. Who really cares about a plastic mount on a lens this small anyway.

 

This lens is the weakest of the Canon wide angles, but that doesn't necessarilly make is a bad lens. If I was in the same place again I'd have no problems buying another one. But, if you can afford it, I'd say the 24 is a much better choice.

 

I'm just wondering how much I'll get for mine on ebay.

B&H has new ones for $110. They got a new batch as they were out of stock for a long time.

I have both the 22-55 and the 28-105 (with an Elan II). They complement each other quite well, and use the same 58mm filters. Where the ranges overlap, the 28-105 will be sharper, particularly wide open. But stopped down to f/6.7 or smaller, the 22-55 will give very respectable wide-angle results. The lens is small and very light, which makes it very handy for travel.

 

<p>It's true that you get what you pay for. The lens mount is plastic, there's no distance scale (not that major an omission), it's slow, and it's not "full-time manual" like the 28-105, so using a polarizer is inconvenient. But for the money, you get a decent lens; there's really no better bargain in ultra-wide lenses.

 

<p>I wouldn't use it to shoot a mural-sized landscape on Provia 100F, but for general travel use it fills the bill very nicely. Since I'm partial to wide-angle lenses, there are numerous pictures on my Web site that I shot with this lens, but the resolution there won't be enough to give you an idea of the quality. But the full-sized 2400 dpi scans are more than adequate for 8x12 enlargements.

One thing of note - Photodo claim that the effective (ie: real life) focal length of the lens is 23 - 53 mm. That 1mm may not sound like much, but makes a big difference when it comes to wide angle lenses.

To answer a question of what it can be sold for on ebay, $130 is what I got for mine. Do your self a favor and buy the 24mm prime. All these kind comments on this lens. I had mine for a month as it was attached to my 630 when I bought the 630. It was my first EOS lens on my first eOS camera. It was a piece of crap. Im not just talking about the build of it. I mean the image quality. Slides shot were blurry when projected in spots and sharp at others. When shooting Black and white I tried a project shooting roses as a class project. It was sunny so I was able to stop down and even at F8 and F11 I couldn't get an accepatable enlargement with it. If I have learned anything about lenses over the years it is not to waste time with cheap glass. I got lucky with the 28-105 3.5-4.5, and even the 100-300USM which will soon be replaced with the 70-200 2.8 L. If you really care about your images buy decent glass. For wide angle on a budget a prime will serve you much better. You will be less likely to hide the pictures shot with it from freinds and family. And more likely to be very proud of your product and go out of your way to display it.

I have used the lens, and 22mm for little $ is fun. For casual use snapshots printed to 4x6 it's fine. For 16*20 prints, forget it.

While a good entry level lens it is not at par with other canon products.

 

check out canons website for good info on all of their lenses.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html

 

Here is what canon says:

An excellent compact standard zoom lens, designed for IX 240 SLR cameras, EOS IX series. However, this lens is fully compatible with 35mm EOS series SLR cameras as well. A replica aspherical lens element (molded plastic on the glass spherical lens(2nd)) provides sharp definition throughout the entire zoom range. Featuring both an ultra-wide-angle 22mm focal length and compact optical system, this lens has a micro USM (Ultrasonic Motor) control for silent, high-speed AF. A wide zoom ring ensures smooth zooming. When fitted on an IX 240 SLR camera, the zoom range is equivalent to a 28-69mm focal length on a 35mm camera. The optical system consists of only ecologically sound lead-free glass lenses.

Also, reposting <a href="http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality.html">this</a> link. It compares actual images from the 22-55 to the 24L T/S lens. I wouldn't touch this one unless budget is the biggest issue or you're not too picky about image quality.