Does anyone use their EF-S 10-22mm a lot?

[nathangardner]

<p>I bought an EF-S 10-22mm lens for my 40D several months ago. Since I've had it, I really haven't used it much, but I may not have had the perfect opportunity for it yet. This wasn't a cheap lens. Does anyone else that has this lens feel they use it enough to justify the money spent?</p>

[tdigi]

<p>This is a pretty silly question that you pretty much answered yourself. If you don't use it what difference does it make if others do. I have owned it when I was using a 40D and its a very good lens and I did use it a lot. there now you should like it more :-}. Seriously if you do not like it sell it and get something you do like. The good news is you can get back most of your money. </p>

[alan_green4]

<p>i don't use mine much but when i do i get great results. try using it as a walkaround as an experiment.</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>I think I haven't used it because I haven't taken many photos lately. I guess what I'm asking is, when I do go out to take photos, how often do opportunities to use this lens present themselves?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>No I have never used the 10-22mm even once.</p>

<p>Of course, that's because I have the Sigma 10-20mm which I use all the time. In my opinion, this focal length makes a really sweet lens for an APS-C camera, if that's what you're interested in.</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p>Might be a silly question, but what was your reason for buying it? I'd go with Alan's suggestion and put it on your camera, and go out and take some pics with it. Try using it for portraits, architecture, florals...whatever is easy to access. If you bought it for landscapes or interior photography, try using it for other subject matter. I don't have it, but i do have the Tokina 11-16 and use it frequently. </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Bought it for landscapes. I don't have a macro lens, and although its not a true macro, it does allow me to get closer to small subjects than my other lenses.</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>it's not the obvious choice, usually. in fact most people rarely need that wide a view. 10-22 is a specialty lens for most shooters. however, if you walk around town and just point and shoot you'll be surprised how interesting the images can be.<br>

here's a technique for shooting on the sly in a downtown (or other crowded) area. put an ultra-wide lens on and shoot without bringing camera to your eye using the live-view screen (or just shoot blind). because the angle of view is so wide people won't realize they're in the frame. just fire off several frames -- like while passing people window-shopping, crossing the street, browsing an outdoor market, etc.<br>

otherwise, zoom out to the wide end, get (very) close to the subject, shoot.<br>

these aren't great examples but they illustrate the potential:<br>

http://moovyboovy.com/2008%20IMAGE%20NOV/pedx_1000.JPG<br>

 

[Burnsie]

<p>Like JDM, I have the Sigma 10-20. I also have the 40D and 17-85 like you do. Instead of the 75-300, I have a 70-300 (very nice glass for airshows, by the way). And over the years I added 28, 50, and 85 (all 1.8's) primes and finally I got really lucky and got a 100 2.8 macro from work. So I can relate to your some of your post.<br>

Probably I shoot 50% of the time with the 17-85, maybe because I am lazy? :) Mostly though, it is a nice lens for just walking around and taking candid shots during daylight / outdoors. I use the primes almost always inside for low light. Even though I know I can get way better quality outdoors with the primes, I really like the convenience of the 17-85 zoom. At f8 and ISO 400, it just works on a 40D for me.<br>

And like JDM, I love my 10-20 and use it a lot for landscapes (almost always on a tripod, where I have time to frame it exactly like I want, either via walking and/or zooming). Alan has some nice ideas, and I may play with that technique with my 10-20 to see how it comes out.<br>

For macros, I had gotten some Kenko DG extension tubes that I originally used it on the 85, but I now just use the 100 macro (with or without ext tubes). It is a fantastic lens. If you want to do macro, I strongly suggest you save up for the 100 2.8. I don't even try macros with my 10-20.</p>

 

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Look at it this way. The lens is basically a 16-32mm on FF. Many people who use 35mm RF cameras have a 35mm lens attached at all times. They use 35mm as a normal lens, because 50mm can be a little boring.</p>

<p>Try attaching the lens and using the 30mm side exclusively, then do the same with the wide. I was going to include some flickr links but I think Alan has already done it. </p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Everyones needs are a bit different. That is why Canon makes so many lenses. My son basically uses the 10-22 as his standard camera lenses. Works great for architecture like walking the streets of NYC or taking scenics in Glacier National Park. I use the 17-40 as my standard lens on a 40D. I love the lens but borrow his 10-22 more so than he borrows my 17-40. With proper use, photos made with the 10-22 are sharp and quite striking. Expensive yes, but excellent quality.</p>

<p> </p>

[va3uxb]

<p>I've got the Sigma 10-20mm, I bought it because I like doing landscapes and wanted a wide lens for that purpose. However, I've found that aside from one short trip, I haven't used it much. On the other hand, it was invaluable when my parents asked me to take shots of their home as they're trying to sell it - for both interior and exterior views, the very-wide perspective allowed me to get the shots I needed in the space available.<br>

I like the creative ideas / suggestions, I'm going to have to try some of those. </p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>you have to place yourself in the position to use the lens.... get out and shoot landscapes, architecture, street photo's.... whatever you want to use the lens for.... just get out and use it... then you can fairly assess the need for it.... good luck.</p>

[adam_gifford]

<p>This lens is invaluable when I hit the nyc autoshow most years. Its too crowded to get nice pictures without being right next to the cars. The 10-22 is the only lens i bring anymore.</p>

[charedan]

<p>I bought this lens a few weeks ago. I bring it on every outing I do, even when birding, and I always find something to shoot with it. I wish I had a second body just for this lens so I wouldn't switch lenses so often. This lens opened up a whole new perspective to my photography. </p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Better yet take a look at this link:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/efs1022/pool/</p>

<p>It takes practice to learn how to use wide and ultra angle lenses effectively. In the flickr group listed above you can see examples of poor usage and what I call leveraged use of wide and ultra wide coverage. So take a look, perhaps those will inspire you.</p>

<p> </p>

[claytontullos]

<p>It is my primary lens on my 50d.</p>

<p>I also have a 50 1.8 and 70-200f4l</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Well... in total disregard of the current UWA popularity;</p>

<p>I borrowed a 10-22 for a week and shot some pictures with it. A few of them were pretty good even. But it's just not my taste in shooting nor the resulting end product. I gave it back to my friend and haven't missed it since.</p>

<p>I'd miss my 50's or my 70-200 a lot. I'd miss my 18mm zoom a little. But the 10-22 just didn't do it for me.</p>

<p>I do confess a wish for a 15-60 lens on my crop camera though... (Preferably built like a 17-40)<br>

Oh well... A man can dream.</p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>Yes, I use it a lot. Together with a 24-105mm it makes my preferred travel combo. A huge range of useful focal lengths covered with two lenses only. There are lots of uses:<br>

Architecture - it has much less distortions between 14 and 20 mm than all the 17 or 18-x zooms at their wide ends.<br>

People or interesting small (but bigger than typical macro) objects with their environment (both sharp).<br>

Dramatic skies.<br>

Many landscape applications.<br>

Good wideangle shots need much exercise with these focal length. Look for interesting forgrounds. Learn to use its steep perspective. Ok, some people prefer the more "natural" perspective of a normal lens. But give it a chance and try it out before selling. Most photographers having a UWA won't go out without it.</p>

 

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>I think I haven't used it because I haven't taken many photos lately. I guess what I'm asking is, when I do go out to take photos, how often do opportunities to use this lens present themselves?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ultra wide is a powerful tool for composition. It is not a lens that you use to just get more stuff in. These lenses make a powerful statement but you need to learn how to use it properly. You should read this to get some ideas of what it can do:<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm</p>

[JeffOwen]

<p>This 10-22 lens was one of the first additional lenses I bought when I first had a 20D. I now have a 40D and it is still one of my favourite lenses. I even use it for panoramic shots using it in portrait mode I can do a full 360 in about 8 frames with plenty of overlap.<br>

It has very little flare and copes with contre-jour shots with ease. My best lens for indoor work and landscapes!</p>

[neil_fiertel]

<p>This is a very fine lens in fact. I kept my 40D even after upgrading to a 5D mk 2 just because of this lens and the compromise of using a smaller sensor camera is compensated for the optical precision of my particular 10-22 mm optic. Your reasons might vary from mine as to why I like this lens but it is not a cheapo optic in the least even if it does not have an L designation. The proof of the pudding is always in the photographic results. I like the fact that I can produce eccentric very exaggerated affects with this lens by shooting from odd angles and close to the subject which many lenses cannot duplicate. That alone is a good reason for me to keep it and the associated camera. I do not work in dusty conditions so the fact that the lens is not sealed is not a downside to me. Too bad, really, that I had invested in HFS lenses in the first place as selling them was financially painful. This one is going to stay with me with the decent 40D. In all truth, 90% of camera users would never see the difference between an APS sized sensor and the full frame. Since I happen to standardise my image prints at 24 by 36, one can see differences there all right but with judicious sharpening and other manipulations which one can make ( and believe me, realism is not my interrest at all ) one can make prints of that size even with an 8 megapixel compact camera such as the G9 given good lighting conditions and a low ISO setting. Thus, the 10-22 lens on a APS-C sensor allows pretty much the same kind of quality that I expect from my wonderful 5D mk 2 much of the time. After all the idea of using a WA lens is to use the entire frame for its open view of the world. Cropping is counter productive and thus a full frame of an APS image is quite wonderful if shot with a low ISO setting which is inevitably my goal in order to achieve quiet and sharp imagery. It is a good pairing of optics and camera.</p><div></div>

[snapshooter]

<p>It's an excellent lens. Just not necessarily an everyday/general subjects lens. I bought mine primarily for the vast and spectacular landscapes of the U.S. Southwest, and I don't get there that often.<br>

Just mount it and use it as if you had no other option, and try some of the tips already written above. Make use of interesting foreground objects, incorporate them in street scenes as well as landscapes or even extreme close-ups.<br>

The day after you sell it, you'll need it where nothing else will suffice :-)</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>I don't use mine a lot, but I didn't get it with that in mind: I got it because when I DO need a lens wider than 17 or 18mm, this was pretty much the only game in town. When you need a longer lens you can shoot shorter and crop down, but when you need a wide angle you need a wide angle.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>AS far as I'm concerned there's a conundrum with wide zooms on the 1.6x Canons (I have two 20Ds + two 40Ds). The 10-22 is too wide and the 16-35 isn't wide enough. (I have both lenses and the 14mm, too). When I saw Nikon coming out with a 14-24 I really thought that was about ideal. In my years of shooting it's been a rare occasion that I "needed" anything wider than a 20mm. OTH, the 16mm (of the 16-35) is about a 28mm or so and that isn't always wide enough. The 10-14 range is about lost on me with the 10-22 but I use it and usually don't like the results later when I get into the 10-13 range. To be clear I don't think there's anything wrong with the 10-22 other than the focal length doesn't suit me very well. I guess my ideal would be around a 13-30 f2.8. The 16-35 is perfect on my 1DmkII with it's 1.3 sensor but I don't use that camera much anymore. Blah, blah, blah. Sorry for running on. Since you have the 10-22 go with it. You'll be fine. Just watch the ultra wide range with it. Good luck with your photography.</p>