Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs by Canon
|
List Price: Our Price: $789.00 You Save: $611.00 (44%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $695.00 (click here) Category: Digital Camera See more digital camera details and other models |
|---|
Digital camera reviews of Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs
Digital camera Review: 10mm FOV (16mm in 35mm terms) in view is refreshing
Summary: 5 Stars
I recently bought this lens, and even though I knew the mathematics, the increase in field-of-view it provides over the 17-85mm IS still surprised me when I first looked through that lens. I'm in the process of selling a house, and this lens is great to take the indoor pictures for the various ads (although it's also easy to make every room look like a deep tunnel -- composition gets a little trickier).
So far the imaging qualities seem to be better than any other lens I own (I don't have canon L-glass). The construction is also quite good -- on par with the 17-85mm IS, I'd say. Size and weight are also similar to the 17-85, which makes it a great match for a 20D camera.
This lens' weakest feature is it's maximum aperture: f/3.5 at the wide end is not horrible, but I always long for faster optics.
Not cheap, but it seems superior to the alternatives in its class. (Note that 10mm offers a significant FOV increase of 12mm, even though the numbers seem close.)
Digital camera Review: 10mm is just OMG!!
Summary: 5 Stars
Everything you see through 10mm lens wide view is totally OMG-!! It is pretty expensive for beginner like me, but it was definitely a good buy. Build quality is very nice. USM is quiet and fast. Before you buy it, make sure you know it is 77mm, and not 58mm, so you need new UV Haze filter for it. I got a lens hood and it is huge!! Thats another OMG for me, but I will tell you, this lens is awesome. (or I should say, 10mm wide-view is awesome. I am a beginner and I don't know much about sharpness and colors)Digital camera Review: 2 years and remains the go to lense for landscapes
Summary: 5 Stars
I've owned this lens for two years and use it with my 20D. Not much needs to be said other than it takes amazing pictures.
Amazing for cramped cityscape conditions like our recent trip to (Old) San Juan. Very cramped streets require a very wide angle lens to simply take a picture across a twenty foot wide street.
Superb contrast and color saturation -- rarely ever fails to capture the scene in very low light conditions (such as deep forest cover in El Yunque in Puerto Rico) ... for which my Sigma 28-200 completely failed to deliver the goods when I needed it most.
Digital camera Review: A comparison to Sigma's 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Summary: 5 Stars
Before I settled on this lens, I bought Sigma's original 10-20mm. After four copies with centering problems and a poor response from Sigma's repair service, I opted instead for Canon's 10-22. When it arrived, I still had the last Sigma on-hand to compare.
This 10-22 is lighter than the Sigma and smaller than I expected it would be. Both lenses have similar build quality, though the Canon's weight is deceptive. It's so light that it would actually feel cheaper than my 28-135 IS if not for the tighter build tolerances. Focus is about the same for all three: fast, quiet, and accurate. The 10-22 has slightly better colors, and both of my copies were even across the frame at 10mm. The only letdown has been some blurriness in the corners, but nothing too extreme, and it cleans up by f/5.6. Flare control is excellent.
At 10mm, the Sigma is equally sharp or better in the center, and better in the corners, but only over 2/3 of the frame. The remaining third, usually the left, would be hopelessly blurry. It cleaned up at 20mm. By contrast, the first copy of the Canon I had was fine at 10mm, but had some centering problems at 20mm that caused blurriness on one side. The second copy was noticeably sharper across the board, so I kept it.
The filter size for this lens is 77mm. That's larger than the lens design strictly requires, so you can use conventional-thickness filters without causing vignetting at 10mm. Polarizers have an uneven effect at the wider focals. Protective UV filters still work as expected, as do neutral-density filters that allow for slow exposures in daylight. Because 77mm is the largest size you're likely to encounter, it's a good place to standardize for more expensive filters. Step-down rings to adapt large filters to smaller lenses are often much less expensive than a new filter.
If you're in very close quarters, this is a great walkaround lens. If you're not, you'll probably want something with more reach. I've found that it's excellent paired with the 28-135/3.5-5.6, or even better, the 24-105/4. Used conventionally, it can lend strong perspective to otherwise ordinary scenes. Reversed on a 40D with a 77mm reversing EOS mount, it becomes a 3.2X - 6.8X macro zoom with very high image quality. At top magnification, Roosevelt's ear on a dime will fill the entire frame, though you'll probably need a spotting light to see your subject to focus.
The 10-22 costs about 50% more than Sigma's 10-20 f/4-5.6 and 10% more than the 10-20/3.5. Is it worth the difference? Comparing ideal copies of all three, probably not. But unless you can try a half-dozen copies of the Sigma at a camera shop, the first Canon that arrives at your doorstep is far more likely to meet your expectations.
Digital camera Review: A lens worth buying a digital slr for
Summary: 5 Stars
I've been more or less addicted to wide angle photography for the last 20 years or thereabouts. Unfortunately, ultra wide angle shooters have been left out of reasonably accessible digital slr photography until very recently. Now there are several viable name brand options available, namely the Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 reviewed here, the Nikon 12-24mm f4, and the Zuiko 7-14mm f4. Because of the 3 different crop factors involved, these lenses end up being pretty close in (35mm equivalent) effective range; 16-35 for the Canon, 18-36 for the Nikon, and 14-28 for the Olympus. Many will caution against purchasing these lenses since they cannot cover the full frame 24x36 format, and cannot even be mounted on a regular body. In the Olympus' case, it doesn't matter since the company has staked its fortunes on the smaller 4/3rds sensor format, and has opened it up to other manufacturers such as Fuji and Panasonic. With the Nikon and Canon, you are taking a leap of faith that the companies will continue to produce 1.5 and 1.6 crop factor sensors into the future so that you will be able to take your crop-only lenses to upgraded digital bodies down the line. To my mind, Olympus has already demonstrated the desirable technical characteristics of a smaller sensor format, so there is good reason to believe that smaller than full frame sensors are here to stay. By extending the glass beyond the mount and into the body, and/or covering a smaller circle, Canon and Nikon are providing those same technical benefits to users of their smaller sensor cameras, namely sharp, extra wide angle in a compact package. Besides which, I'm much more concerned with the photos I couldn't take if I stayed away from the product, than I am with its unknown future upgrade path.
While the Olympus lens and 4/3rds system was intriguing, I felt that the 7-14mm wasn't worth more than double the price of the Canon for 2 extra mm at the wide end. It's also double the weight - making it impractical for use as an everyday lens, and negating the advantages of the E-1 body. So, I was pretty much down to the Canon or the Nikon (or the always available Waitsomemore).
At this point, I should say I'm platform agnostic. In the 80's I happily used Minolta equipment. In the 90's I bought some Nikon gear to use their 15mm prime lens. Basically, if it suits my purposes, I don't care what the label is.
Back to the lenses. The Nikon is more expensive and less wide, but it does have the continuous maximum apeture throughout the range. The Canon is wider, a tad lighter, and a tiny amount faster at the wide end. Both appear to be excellent choices, but I could not consider them independently of the cameras they would be mated to. Since I did not already own a digital body, it also came down to a decision between the Canon 20d & Nikon D70s. Here, the Canon wins for me on quality of sensor and a host of other details.
In practice, the lens is a joy to use. It's sharp. The zoom allows it to be as wide as you need it, which is an improvement over my previous favorite Minolta 20mm 2.8, though it does lack the depth of field scales which the Minolta has. The zoom also allows for keeping the lens mounted without switching as often, and that's important for keeping out dust. It's a very solidly built, quality instrument. Focus is fast if you're into that sort of thing, and nearly silent with the ultrasonic motor. The lens does not extend in length for zooming or focusing, though the front elements do move slightly inside the barrel. Mated to the 20d it's a tool that exceeds my previous film cameras in just about every way imaginable. I'm finally free to make the ultrawide photos that I want to make in the digital domain and the initial results have been outstanding.
If you're into ultrawide and want to go digital, the 20d with 10-22 is a fantastic setup. If you've already gone digital and want to try wide angle, (assuming your camera can use ef-s lenses) this is a true bargain - you get a 16mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm all rolled into one. It makes me positively giddy. Thank you, Canon!