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

[giovannis]

I am very, very satisfied with this lens. Great perspective and sharp. It may be slow, but I don't notice it in relation to the kind of photos I take (attached: an old roman bridge).

[awindsor]

<blockquote>

If you want more from a wide angle lens there is the 10-22mm EF-S lens that might become obsolete in the next 3 years, is not weather sealed, cost about $700+ ! , does not come with a hood or pouch, has "Amateur" written all over it because of the questionable f3.5/4.5 and has cheap kit-look.

</blockquote><P>

 

First let me point out that no 1.6x crop factor body is weather sealed so worrying about whether a lens that can only be mounted on these bodies is weather sealed is a little silly. Since you need a rain cover for the camera you can use it to cover the lens body too. <P>

 

Worrying about a lens' appearance or whether it comes with a pouch is also a little silly. The lack of a hood for such an expensive lens is merely annoying. You will buy one at the same time you buy the lens, right. <P>

 

The fact it is a 3.5-4.5 is a problem given that you intend to shoot interior shots with this lens. Unfortunately there is no equivalent of a 16-25/2.8 for the crop factor cameras. The 10-22 is faster at the wide end than any of the third party competition. You can hand hold a wide angle lens at quite slow shutter speeds so subject movement is probably more of a problem. <P>

 

Leica M1? Why would you want one of these? They are essentially a collectors item. They have no coupled rangefinder and only two non-switchable bright lines (35mm and 50mm so no wide angle without an external viewfinder and no parallax correction).<P>

 

The obvious solution if you are into such money is to get a 5D and a 16-35/2.8 II.

[hjoseph7]

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Autofocus (Category:EOS Lenses)

I read some good reviews about this lens and some bad ones. The reason why I am

interested in this lens is because of the type of pictures I want to take. Wide

angle lenses in my opinion, make for some surreal and dramatic shots that

otherwise would be cliche or booring.

 

I got interested in wide angle photography when an award winning photographer

visited a photography class I was taking at a local college. Her pictures were

so good that after her presentation, everybody felt as if they had shrunk a

couple of inches, if not a couple of feet(at least I did).

 

Anyway, "Real" wide angle lenses let you get up close, real close to were the

action is, which means for some very dramatic shots. Wide angle lenses let you

shoot indoors, or in tight corners(incase you happen to be stuck in a tent in

the middle of the Sahara desert).

 

They are also good for Landscape and City scenes such as tall buildings.

Currently, most Digital cameras with their 1.6X or 1.5X magnification factors

do not allow for supper wide angle shots. A 24mm lens is the equivalent of a

38.4mm (FF) lens, Nikon cameras have a 1.5X factor which converts to 36mm,

which is still not in the Super, or even Normal Wide-Angle range of 16-35mm.

 

Right now the only options Canon offers for "Real" wide angle photography are

the 14mm 2.8($1800), a 15mm fish eye($500+) not bad if you are in to fish- eye

shots, and a 20mm 2.8mm non 'L' series lens that convert to 32mm(Full frame)

and only cost about $400, but has received controversial reviews lately..

 

If you want more from a wide angle lens there is the 10-22mm EF-S lens that

might become obsolete in the next 3 years, is not weather sealed, cost about

$700+ ! , does not come with a hood or pouch, has "Amateur" written all over it

because of the questionable f3.5/4.5 and has cheap kit-look.

 

Other than that, I hear this lens takes some great pictures. If you are indoors

in low light situations you can allways bump-up the ISO a bit which is a non-

issue with most Canon Slr's. It's light, small, and unobtrusive, perfect for

tight in-your-face personal shots. I wish it was weather-sealed and was at

least a f2.8, but that would probably make it bigger, heavier and certainly

more expensive.

 

Of course there is allways the Leica M1 ($4000) which is a much smaller,

quieter and less obtrusive, perfect for indoor shots. However the lenses might

cost you an arm or a leg, your house or your marriage...

 

Does anybody here have any experience with the Canon 10-22mm zoom lens and can

give me some non-biased advise ? Thanks

[glenn nk]

In reply to a few above comments:

 

1) I've tested three copies of the Canon 10/22, (all at once in the store). It's not a "L" built lens, but it isn't going to fall apart in the hands of a reasonably non-clumsy person. It's built like my 17/55 which will likely last me for years.

 

2) I considered three lenses in the UWA range: Canon, Sigma, and Tokina, and compared reviews of the lenses. The Canon and the Tokina were very close IQ-wise, and one reviewer gave the Tokina the nod for build quality (photozone). The Tokina is a few hundred less than the Canon, so I ordered the Tokina (12/24) from B+H (it's at the courier where I pick it up tomorrow - 12 Mar 07).

 

3) Rain isn't hard to protect against (unless it's accompained by a hurricane.

 

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-alias=electronics&field-keywords=slr%20camera%20rain%20hood&page=1

 

There are other brands (my camera dealer sells them, but I don't know who makes them).

 

4) Sand-storms are a killer - sand-blasting is used to etch granite, glass, and steel (pure silica sand is used, ordinary sand often has some silica particles).

 

5) High humidity is also bad news (I mean RH values in the high eighties an up); one could store the body/lens in a ziploc bag with desiccant, but it still has to be taken out to use. Of course the desiccant would have to be re-generated.

 

You are imposing some very difficult conditions on your gear, but there are times when that does happen.

[brucecyr]

Harry,

 

My biased advice: This is not the right lens for you -- cheap kit look and all. Bite the bullet and get a FF body and suitable WA.

[hjoseph7]

I was thinking about the 17-40mm f4, or the 16-35mm 2.8($1300) but I figured why get the 17-40mm f4 if it's just as slow as the 10-22mm and is barely in the 'true' wide-angle category.

 

The 16-35mm f2.8 is a lens I would not mind having, being that I plan to upgrade to the 5D in a couple of years. However, right now my budget does not allow for it. I still have to eat !

 

I'm trying to get some insights on this lens from people who really own one, rather than listen to those those rubber-stamped reviews before I plunk down my money.

 

I also thought about the 17-55mm 2.8 which I heard is a great lens, but again is not weather sealed. Weather sealing comes in handy not only in the rain, but in high hummidy, dusty, or sandy situations. Does anybody have any recomendations on protective gear for camera and lenses that will protect your against rain, sand-storms, or high humidity ?

[JeffOwen]

I am completely satisfied with my 10-22 on my 20D which I have had ever since it became available here in the UK. It has produced many shots for me which no other lens could have done in the circumstances.

 

I think that Alistair's comment reflect mine completely, so unless you have a FF body this is the 'best' ultra wide angle lens there is.

[jo7hs2]

Harry,

 

There's still the option of shooting film for wide-angle work, if a full-frame digital is out of your price range, and the 10-22 rubs you the wrong way. I carry a film body for when I need my 17-40 to be ultra wide, rather than just wide-ish.

 

Don't make a decision based on how a lens looks, btw.

[phyrpowr]

The two Grand Canyon shots with the swirly cloud in my portfolio were made with this lens, take a look. In the horizontal, that little metal thing in the bottom right corner was nearly even with the lens

 

I'm like you, didn't much think about wide angle until a workshop, one of the other participants brought in some great stuff, bought the lens soon after

 

Don't think you'd lose that much on a sale if you do go to FF

[rainer_t]

-- "If you want more from a wide angle lens there is the 10-22mm EF-S lens that might become obsolete in the next 3 years, is not weather sealed, cost about $700+ ! , does not come with a hood or pouch, has "Amateur" written all over it because of the questionable f3.5/4.5 and has cheap kit-look."

 

Well, seems like "pro-look" and "I'm a PROFESSIONAL" being written all over equippment means more to you than imagequality.

 

Open your purse (which is hopefully equipped with pro-money), get yourself a 5D and a EF 16-35/2.8L. The camera-body still hasn't "pro"

written on it, but at least, you'll have the red ring on the lens, the price includes a hood, and you don't have questionable f-stops.

 

For the rest of us (like me), the EFS10-22 with it's amazing optical quality shall be good enough for now.

[lester_wareham]

It is a very good lens and I am happy with mine. It is a good peformer for a UWA lens and gives very sharp results and is well controlled for flare.

 

A contender is the the Sigma 10-20 which has had some good tests but there seems to be a larger than normal number of people with bad copies which does not seem to ne the case with the Canon.

 

For the small differnce in price I would stick wih Canon.

[hjoseph7]

"You are imposing some very difficult conditions on your gear, but there are times when that does happen."

 

Thanks for the tips Guys. I just ordered the lens from B&H. I still can't get over the fact that I paid almost $700 for a non IS 3.5/4.5 lens. Oh well that's life... If you mean very difficult conditions like Miami beach FL, where my non weather sealed Camera(Elam II) or maybe it was my non weather sealed lens(24-105mm f3.5/4.5) locked up on me, then maybe I need to go back to my mechanical FM2 which never gave those type of problems. As far as using my FF camera to take wide angle shots, I thought about that too. With the purchase of the 10-22mm I now have a pretty decent range which can also be applied to my FF camera. The only difference is that the digital range for the 3 zoom lenses I currently own(10-22mm, 24-70mm,70-200mm) is actually (16-320mm) with the FF it is (10-200mm). Now all I need is an 1.4x extender and I'm good to go. The folks from B&H or Adorama should not hear from me again I can make peace with my wife, until I decide to upgrade to the 5D. hopefully by then, I can aford the 16-35mm II which just came out and cost about $1500.

[awindsor]

Harry,

 

The 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S cannot be used on a full frame camera. If you truly want wide and full frame you narrow your choice to the Sigma 12-24. It is the only full frame ultrawide zoom.

 

Having said that I think that the 10-22/3.5-4.5 is a better choice.

[jimstrutz]

If you are sticking with crop frame bodies for a while before upgrading to FF, then the Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 11-18, Tokina 12-24, or Sigma 12-24 are your only options for going wide. Of those the Sigma 12-24 is the only one that completely works on a FF body, although the Tokina can also be used from 18-24mm on a FF body without vignetting.

 

None of these have f/28 apertures, and of them, the Canon seems to have the best reputation, and will undoubtedly hold it's value the best as well. So when you do upgrade you can sell it to retrieve most of your investment. It's either that or get a Tokina or Sigma 12-24, and using it on both camera type. But 12mm isn't nearly as wide as 10mm. At these focal lengths every millimeter is important.

 

Getting a "16 or 17mm to whatever" lens is a way to keep compatible with a future FF body, but won't be very wide at all on a crop frame body. I don't think it's an acceptable option if you want wide now.

[andre_reinders]

I am with Glenn - I got my Tokina 12-24 a month ago for use on my 20D. I am not disappointed so far. I also have a Canon Elan 7N film camera and since I can use it from 18-24 on that camera, I am selling my 19-35mm Tamron.

 

PS It comes with a hood. ;)

[hjoseph7]

"The 10-22/3.5-4.5 EF-S cannot be used on a full frame camera. If you truly want wide and full frame you narrow your choice to the Sigma 12-24. It is the only full frame ultrawide zoom"

 

Ooops I forgot ! I still cn use the 24-70mm on my FF(film) and get pretty decent wide, although not super wide shots.

[synnacdesign]

Granted that the 10-22 will not work on a full frame Canon camera if you do choose to upgrade at some point in that direction.

 

However I use the 10-22 on my 20D and am more than satisfied with the lens.

[Brad_]

<i>This is not the right lens for you -- cheap kit look and all </I><P>

 

Not sure what a "cheap kit look" is. But I have a website full of pix from the lens and

couldn't

be happier. Perhaps the poster could expand on how the "kit look" is

important.<BR><P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images11/SFWeb%203-20-05/image/

lawrence.jpg">

</center>

[luke_tyssowski1]

I want one. :)

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>has "Amateur" written all over it because of the questionable f3.5/4.5 and has cheap kit-look.</cite>

 

<p>Are you looking to buy a lens or a fashion accessory?</p>

 

<p>Even if you go full-frame, you're not going to find anything much faster with an equivalent view on the wide end. The angle of view of this lens is equivalent to a 16-35 on a full-frame, and the 16-35 is only half a stop faster at the wide end. Canon's only primes in the teens are also f/2.8. If you plan on shooting in the longer half of the 10-22's range and need something faster than f/4.5, get the 16-35/2.8 or 17-55/2.8.</p>

 

<p>You can debate all you want about the future of 1.6-crop, but I'm firmly convinced its lifespan is well beyond the 3 years you give it. 1.6-crop or thereabouts is the <em>only</em> format offered by virtually everyone else in the DSLR market. No matter how rapidly the cost of full-frame sensors comes down, 1.6-crop will always be cheaper, which suggests that at the minimum, the low end of the market is going to be 1.6-crop for a long time, and as long as everyone else's advanced-amateur bodies are 1.6-crop or similar, Canon's going to sell a 1.6-crop advanced-amateur body, too.</p>

 

<p>As was pointed out above, none of Canon's 1.6-crop bodies are sealed, so if you're shooting in harsh conditions, you're going to have to protect the body anyway, and you can do the same for the lens. So the sealing is a non-issue. Build quality is not up to L standards, but it's at the high end of the consumer range, and plenty of us have had no trouble whatsoever with other Canon high-end consumer zooms. This is also a non-issue unless you plan on abusing the lens, in which case it might be better either to figure out how not to abuse the lens or how to protect it when in environments where abuse is unavoidable.</p>

 

<p>Optics? If you look at the block diagram, you'll see that it uses the same sorts of exotic materials as the L superwide zooms (16-35 and 17-40). And it has earned a very, very good reputation for its optics. Also a non-issue.</p>

 

<p>Yes, the lack of hood is annoying, but entirely expected; Canon's normal practice is to include the hood with L lenses and not with non-L lenses. It's probably not a cheap hood, either; most Canon hoods aren't. But it's the same hood used on the original 16-35 and on the 17-40, and there are plenty of us who have bought an alternate hood for one of those two to use them on a 1.6-crop body, so there should be some lightly-used 10-22/16-35/17-40 hoods on the market.</p>

 

<p>So I'm really not sure why you are so down on this lens.</p>