100% Crops EFS 10-22 and EFS 18-55

[erik_p1]

I just recently purchased the 10-22. Thinking maybe it is a bad copy?

 

I am comparing pics taken on tripod at f8.

 

the 10-22 is at 22MM and the 18-55 is at 21MM

 

What are your thoughts? I would think that the 10-22 at $675 should

be as least as sharp as the 18-55 at about $100.<div></div>

[erik_p1]

Here is the 18-55<div></div>

[erik_p1]

Here is Upper right (not all the way to the corner) 10-22<div></div>

[erik_p1]

Here is the 18-55 upper right<div></div>

[bobatkins]

Looks like the 18-55 is a real bargain, contrary to what many people have said. Just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's bad.

 

I'd try again with focus bracketing and see what you get.

[liu_rui]

no doubt 18-55 is a wonderful lens

[erik_p1]

Here is the 10-22 again so it shows<div></div>

[erik_p1]

And the 18-55<div></div>

[brian_faini]

for a cheap-o i love the 18-55 i have some amazingly clear shots with it , sharpness has never been a problem with with it, other than it is on the slow side...

[erik_p1]

I guess what I am looking for is opinions on the 10-22. Is it likely I can find a sharper copy? Should I send this one back?

[dk.]

Man going by your pictures the 18-55 is much better then the 10-22. I would sent it back for another one ether that or send it back and keep your money and just use the 18-55. I don't have ether lens by the way so I would not know if your 10-22 is a bad copy or if they are all like that. (I like the Colour better in the 18-55 pictures too)

 

DK.

[goulden]

here's a 100% crop from the centre of my EF-s 10-22

[erik_p1]

James, is that sharpened at all or straight out of the camera?

[bennyboy]

Make a comparison at 10mm. Oh the 18-55 doesn't do 10mm does it.

[bennyboy]

Here's a shot at 22mm with the 10-22, it's not a 100% crop but I think it's reasonably sharp.

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3896192-lg.jpg

[erik_p1]

Ben,

 

You are correct. The 18-55 doesn't go to 10mm.

 

I am just looking for input into the 10-22 sharpness that I am experiencing. The 18-55 is the only lens I have the overlaps. Is it to be expected that the 10-22 at 22 should be outperformed by the 18-15? If so, sending it back for another copy would be fruitless, however, I would hope that the $675 lens should hold its own at that focal length.

[prince_alfie]

Canon wide angles aren't really all that sharp to be honest. In fact, you would be better off with a Leica or Contax wide angle.

[erik_p1]

Alfie,

 

Is there such an animal for sub 18mm?

[rafael_franco]

You are comparing one lens at the longest focal length and the other almost at the shortest focal length. I think that differences should be expected but I do not know if the difference should be that noticeable.

[mcgarity]

Just how much is that Leica or Contax going to cost? I suspect it would be a WHOLE lot more than $675.

[alexdi]

I'm going to chalk this up to sample variation. I've never gotten a picture that sharp from my 18-55 at 21mm.

 

DI

[ky2]

You have a lemon of a 10-22. Mine stacks right up there against my 17-40L which will wipes the floor with any 18-55.

[erik_p1]

Thank you Yaron,

 

That is the information I was looking for....

[ky2]

Erik, take a look at this thread for more reference: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DMxL

[david_lau3]

My 10-22 is very sharp at the 22mm end, certainly much sharper than your picture. In fact, it is already very sharp at 5.6 and does not improve much even stopping down further.

 

If your result is not due to incorrect focus, then I would say you may have a bad copy.