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

[JohnKoerner]

Has anyone seen the brand new Photozone review of the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM? It was conducted on the new Canon 50D:

Photozone Review:
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/406-canon_1022_3545_50d

* The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM exhibited a quite impressive performance
* The AF accuracy was spot on during the tests
* The lens produced a very good (resolution) performance in the lab.

People have criticized Canon's ultra-wides, yet Michael also had this to say (on an older camera):

Michael's Review:
http://llvj.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

* Sometimes Canon's non-L series lenses can feel a bit cheap, but not this one
* Overall, exemplary (CA) performance
* This is an extremely sharp lens, at all three tested focal lengths
* I wouldn't hesitate to use the Canon 10-22mm for any professional application
* It is probably the highest quality super-wide zoom that one can currently buy for a Canon DSLR of this format



So could it be that the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is the Best APS-C Wide-Angle Lens on the Market?



Jack





.

[new_haven]

I've seen quite a few positive reviews for the tokina 11-16, including this one from photo.net , although I haven't seen an unfavorable review for the canon 10-22.

http://photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/

For full disclosure, I don't own either, as my widest lens is the canon 17-40.

[stever]

i bought the tokina to replace the 10-22 because of disappointment in edge sharpness, but have not yet done a serious comparison - it is better, but i can't say how much.  the f2.8 is useful and the tokina is an extremely solid feeling smooth operating lens (about the same size and noticeably heavier).  unless you for some reason need the greater range (personally, i'd be happiest with a high quality 11mm prime), i think the tokina at essentially the same price is the winner.

[Chairman Bill]

... So could it be that the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is the Best APS-C Wide-Angle Lens on the Market?

Well, it could be, but there is nothing in any report I've read that confirms it. It does seem to be the best Canon EF-S 10-22 mm though, but other than that, who's to say. Personally, I'm quite happy with my Nikon 12-24mm

[Ray]

I once compared my Sigma 15-30 on the 5D (at 15mm) with the Canon 10-22 on the 20D (at 10mm), moving back slightly with the 20D to equalise FoV.

I found the Sigma/5D combination to be sharper, so the EF-S 10-22 is largely an unused lens for me. I bought it when I had no inkling that Canon were working on the first affordable full frame 35mm DSLR.

Maybe it's time to do a comparison with the EF-S 10-22 on the 50D. However, I've not got much incentive to do that since my Sigma 15-30 is now redundant. I'm using the Nikkor 14-24 on my 5D.

Nevertheless, I might do that if only for academic interest. The 50D with EF-S 10-22 is a lot lighter and less bulky than the 5D with Nikkor 14-24 or Sigma 15-30.

[JohnKoerner]

Thanks for the feedback.

Ray, the Photozone test was a re-test on the 50D, and they rated it much higher with the put on the improved 50D.

It would be worth a read to you, I think.

[DarkPenguin]

I think the Oly 7-14 is supposed to be about as good as it gets in the sub 35MM FF world.  $1500 lens, tho.

[mahleu]

The new Tamron 10-24 is meant to be very good, costs about the same as the canon.

[DarkPenguin]

Is the Tamron 10-24 available?  I haven't found it yet.  I've been waiting for it to show up and be tested before I replace my Tokina 12-24 f4.

[mahleu]

Is the Tamron 10-24 available?  I haven't found it yet.  I've been waiting for it to show up and be tested before I replace my Tokina 12-24 f4.

End of November over here although I haven't actually seen one.

[DarkPenguin]

Looks like the Tamron 10-24 is available in Nikon mount.  B+H doesn't even list it in Canon mount.  Adorama does but it isn't available yet.

Looks like it is on its way.  Now I need a review since its predecessor (the 11-18) was so poorly received.

[Misirlou]

I use that lens like crazy, for interiors, landscape, all kinds of things. In fact, I use the 10-22 more than any other lens I have (even the 17-55 2., and often at the 10mm end.

The 10-22 has minor optical defects (C/A, distortion, edge sharpness) that clean up wonderfully with DxO. Lightroom will handle the C/A fairly well, but without DxO, you need PTlens or something similar to repair the small amount of distortion, if you're shooting architecture.

It's pretty light, and handles quite well. I like the non-rotating front for polarizer use (very dangerous at the 10mm end with sky showing though). The hood is expensive, and I often wonder if it would work better if designed like one of those recent "backwards" looking Leica hoods.

Anyway, I haven't used the competing lenses, but don't regret having bought the 10-22 at all.

[CynthiaM]

I love this lens.  It is wonderful for landscapes and for interior shots, especially churches where you want a ceiling to floor image.

Is it the best wide-angle out there?  That I can't say but what I can tell you is that I once attended a Flower workshop sponsored by Canon, led by one of their pro-marketers.  She felt that the quality of this lens and that of the 17-55 were tantamount to L quality lenses, but that Canon couldn't label them L lenses because they are for the 1.6 crop cameras.

Also influential in my decision to purchase this lens is that it was lighter than any other option which is important to me.  

If you want to see samples of images shot with this lens, let me know and I can send you links.

Regards,

[JohnKoerner]

Thanks for the feedback Misirlou & Cynthia; I had almost forgotten about this thread  

Did you take the wide photos on your site with this camera, Cynthia? Either way, they are very nice.

Based on what I've been reading (all I have to go on at the moment), while DPReview and some others have criticized the 50D for bringing out the "worst" in lesser lenses, it seems like the converse is also true, that the 50D is bringing out the "best" in Canon's better lenses (e.g., this one, the 100 mm & 180mm macros, the 100-400mm zoom, etc.).

I will probably wait awhile before getting this particular lens, as I am not much of a wide-angle shooter, but in several months I will be visiting the Northern Pacific Coast and was dismayed that many of the Canon wides have been criticized ... yet everyone seems to like this particular lens quite a bit.

So when folks like yourselves (and even pro reviewers, as up top) continue to say this lens exhibits professional-level quality all through its range, especially on the 50D, it makes me feel good about my recent purchase of a 50D (I get it here Wednesday  ).

Thanks again.

[CynthiaM]

Most of my 10-22 images are in my travel galleries, starting from the spring of 2007.  None of the IR images are shot with that lens; for IR I use mostly an 18-200mm lens.  In SmugMug, if you hover over the right edge of an image, then click on the "i" it will bring up exif data.  If it's not IR and if the focal length is less than 24mm, and if it's dated after spring 2007, then it was probably shot with the 10-22.

Here are some of My favorites:
Contemplating Divinity
Vatican Museum exit staircase
In the Shadows of Assisi
Cruising the Inside Passage
Taormina
Ephesus
Amalfi Coast
Plaza de Toros