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 product details |
|---|
Customers in the UK,
Buy this product at amazon.co.uk
for British Pounds
Digital Cameras Photo Reviews of Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs
Customer 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.
Customer Review: Must-have lens if you have ever been frustrated by cropped scenes
Summary: 5 Stars
A few years ago we went to Ireland (shooting with a Canon G9) and I was constantly frustrated by my inability to capture the *hugeness* of many indoor churches or outdoor castles to convey how immense a lot of what we were seeing was.
Time and time again, at 24mm, it just wasn't wide enough for me to back into the corner of a building and capture the full scope of what we were seeing. I decided then and there that when I got a DSLR I was going to fix that issue.
Fast forward a few years and I got a Canon 60D for Christmas. In preparation for a trip to Greece (picture added to sample images) I hummed and hawed about getting the 10-22 because I was worried, even on a crop-sensor, that it would be TOO wide.
I was debating spending the $700 on this 10-22 lens or spending $1500 on the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens lens. A friend had picked up the 16-35 and said it was excellent; a perfect walk-around lens and that he never had an issue with it "not being wide enough".
Anyway, due to cost I decided to get the 10-22 and have to say that was the BEST decision I made for the Greece trip. There are an innumerable number of shots (1300 in total) that I took on that trip, capturing hillside towns, the Parthenon or ancient ruins that would have been impossible with anything narrower.
At 10mm on a crop-sensor like the 60D, that gives me an effective 16mm focal point and time and time again I was *so happy* the lens would go that wide when shooting inside a church or ruined building.
The slight bending of perspective at really wide angles was a *good* thing I though; I don't mind it, I think it's artistic and helps give a "woooAAAA that is big" impression to friends and family viewing our pictures and trying to understand just how huge these ruins were.
Since getting back I actually ended up buying the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II USM after all and have to say that it is "wide enough" for most every day use, but for Greece, I would take the 10-22 again over the 16-35 any day because those extra 6mm make a big difference.
If you are like me and trying to shoot huge things and capture them all in-frame, get the 10-22 and know you have an awesome lens. If you are looking for the perfect walk-around lens, grab the 16-35 or just use the kit 18-135... that is actually a fantastic walk-around lens and won't send you to the poor house.
Hope the comparison of the two most popular lenses helped, because I was humming and hawing so long about that choice that I was happy when I finally made it!
Customer Review: My photographic "pride and joy", actual score is 4.5 stars
Summary: 5 Stars
I have owned this lens for about 16 months and am extremely pleased with it. I have a Digital Rebel (300D), so the EF-S designation is perfect for me (for now). It took a little getting used to, as I had never shot with a ultra wide lens before, but I love the possibilities it offers. For instance, I can stand remarkably close to a large object (i.e. building, monument, landscape feature) and easily fit the entire object in the frame. There is, of course, considerable trapezoidal effect in these shots, but that can be corrected fairly easily in Photoshop.
While shopping for an ultra wide lens, I visited a local camera shop and compared the EF-S 10-22 to a 17-40 L on my Digital Rebel. The sales guy and I went outside, took several shots with each lens, downloaded them to a computer in the store and compared them side-by-side. We took the same shot with the same settings, then the same shot with each lens wide open. The results were extremely surprising.
There was no noticeable difference in color or sharpness quality between the two lenses in the focal areas of the images. Both lenses produced very good images, but the L lens certainly wasn't better. This was a pretty big surprise to both of us. The even bigger surprise was the EF-S was VERY noticeably sharper around the edges at 10mm f3.5 vs the L lens at 17mm f4. The sales guy was completely amazed, as he had started off by giving me the usual speech about the superiority of Canon L series lenses. I think our experiment has given him something different to tell his customers!
I still believe there are great reasons to buy L lenses, and someday soon I probably will. But I walked out of there with the EF-S lens, especially considering both were the same price and the 10-22 is markedly wider on my DRebel (no surprise!).
Pros: ultra wide angle capability for APS-C cameras, "L-like" build quality and sharpness
Cons: EF-S designation limits compatible cameras (resulting in half star reduction)
In summary, this lens is my photographic "pride and joy", and it travels everywhere with me.
Customer Review: The best lens I own
Summary: 5 Stars
I have had this lens for several months now and let me start out by saying WOW. I looked at the lens in the store along with the Sigma 12-24 and I was in total awe of what I saw though the view finder with the Canon 10-22. This is an ultra wide angle lens that is incredible. I went home and thought about where I would use this lens and determined that I would use it quite a bit. I went ahead and bought the lens and I continue to be more impressed with it every time I use it. I have used the lens for both close-up (which can give you some very interesting distortion shots)and wide angle shots with great success.
The 10-22mm is equivalent to 16-35mm field of view using a canon 20D which is not a full frame sensor. With a minimum focal distance of .24m (about 9.5 inches) you can get very close to objects and still get alot of focal width in the photo. There is incredible clarity in the lens. The photos I have taken are very clear with only a slight hint of softening at the corners at 10mm; everything else is sharp after that. There is a little barrel distortion at 10mm but everything else up to 22mm is nice. I have not gotten any light flare in my photos. The Ultrasonic motor is very quiet. The depth of field is outstanding. A slim UV filter helps prevent some slight vignetting at 10mm. With a maximum aperture that ranges from f/3.5 to f/4.5, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens is a medium speed lens. I would recommend using a tripod if you are at all unsure about your ability to hold the camera still for action shots with this lens. The lens it's self is fairly light weight. If you are going to use filters the lens requires 77mm.
The lens can produce some interesting distortion shots if you are taking close-ups and are not perpendicular to the object. For close-up shots with out distortion it is best to be perpendicular to the object.
Inside the lens housing there are three aspherical lens elements and a Super UD element that produce clear vibrant shots. The lens it's self sturdily built and comfortable to handle.
Customer Review: Forget other brands, this is THE wide angle lens at 10mm!!
Summary: 5 Stars
I have been thinking/researching about other cheaper ultra wide angle zoom but finally decided to stick to Canon. I amost wanted to buy the Sigma but decided against it after having two other Sigma lenses (30mm and 18-200mm) These two are great lenses, especially the 30mm but one problem is that they have occasional autofocus problem on my Canon 350D. This is understanble because 3rd party lens will never be 100% compatible and you pay for what you get. I am not a Canon brand loyalty and I will buy other 3rd party lenses in the future so don't get me wrong. At this price, I was not going to risk and therefore I bought the Canon 10-22mm instead of the Sigma 10-20mm as good quality ultrawide angle pic is VERY important to me and I do not want to regret.
And, having bought this lens, I thank myself for not trying to save ?100 to get the Sigma. Everything meets my expectation and more. I have used this lens for general walkaround more than my other lenses since acquiring this lens! The field of view is SO wide that if not careful, you will include your feet in the picture!
USing this lens is a whole new experience as careful compositionis required not to create distortion or including things that you do not want to be framed.
Bad points (yes there are some but not on image quality):
-too bulky/big (thank god it is light in weight)
-needs a 77mm filter to protect the front element, this is another sum of money required!
-feels cheap (due to its plasticky feel)
I have some real life samples here to show you if you are interested, they were taken while I was having my holiday in Malaysia last december (2005):
(not all pics taken with this lens, but each photo is indicated with type of lens used)
http://www.theteh.com/html/malaysia_2005.html
Hope this helps your decision!