James Brown , Oct 28, 2009; 01:06 p.m.
I want one of these and have read all the glowing reviews, but I am worried because of all of them I see on ebay. There's hundreds of them. Most people use the excuse that they went to a full frame digital SLR, but is it possible that there are so many people upgrading? Convince me to go ahead and get one. They sell for just over $600 used.
Robin Sibson , Oct 28, 2009; 01:22 p.m.
I would not attempt to convince you to buy one on ebay; it's for you to decide whether that's a good idea. I can add my voice to the positive reviews you have seen. As UWA zooms go, the 10~22 is really very good. There was a time when it was regarded as a close call between 10~22 on 20D/30D and 17~40 on 5D, with the balance in favour of FF, as you would expect, but not by all that much. However, 10~22 on 50D/7D against 17~40 on 5DII may be a comparison that is even more favourable to the 10~22, because until you stop it down quite a long way, the 17~40 at 17mm has poor corner performance on FF and the 5DII shows that up fairly mercilessly. Whereas the 10~22 holds up well at 10mm on the 50D (and, I assume, on the 7D).
Nathan Meador , Oct 28, 2009; 02:23 p.m.
I opted for the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, mainly for the faster aperture, but the Canon is highly rated. It is such a wide lens, maybe a lot of buyers decided they wanted more reach and opted for something in the 30mm and up range.
Nathan Gardner 
, Oct 28, 2009; 02:26 p.m.
A lot of people probably do move to FF. I bought one on eBay about 8 months ago because I drooled over it for a long time. I was never so excited to get a lens. I sold it last month because I took about 5 pictures with it over the 8 month period. A lot of people love this lens and swear by it. It is a great lens, and can be very useful for some photographers, I just didn't happen to be one of them. I think a lot of people sell them because they don't use them. If you want it get it. If you love it, you'll have it. Worst case scenario, you decide it's not for you and you get your money back selling it, nothing lost. I actually sold mine for $60 more than I bought it.
Alan Green , Oct 28, 2009; 02:47 p.m.
10-22 is a very good optic. surprisingly bright/sharp, very rich clear color. it doesn't, however, lend itself to a lot of usage. just too wide. it's a specialty lens. i suspect people get them, realize they don't really use them that much if at all, sell them.
James Brown , Oct 28, 2009; 02:52 p.m.
I've already got the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, maybe that's wide enough. I might be better off getting the EF 70-200mm f/4.0 IS USM?
Tommy DiGiovanni , Oct 28, 2009; 02:57 p.m.
Its a great lens but a specialty lens that only works on ASP-C, I would imagine thats why many of them are for sale.
I had one and sold it as well ( went to full frame ) If you find 17 is not wide enough, if you shoot lots of landscapes it would be a good lens for you. The quality you get is on par with your 17-55.
Mendel Leisk 
, Oct 28, 2009; 03:17 p.m.
It's more-or-less identical to the 16-35 focal length on full frame. Per the other responders, the majority are likely being sold by owners going to full frame. It's a very nice wide angle, quite sharp even in the corners.
Downsides (to nitpick): the somewhat slow, variable max aperture, and the 22mm cut-off, which can make for a lot of lens swapping when you need longer. It's the same as the 16-35 (on full frame) in this regard.
I've pretty much passed mine over to one of my sons since I switched to 5D.
Darryl KLein , Oct 28, 2009; 03:20 p.m.
I agree with the glowing reviews of the 10-22. I own one, as well as the 17-55 EF-S and 70-400 IS F4.0.
10-22 is invaluable for interesting landscape shots, as well as creative shots of all kinds.
I do have to say tho, the 70-200 F4 IS is a stunner! If I had to choose between the two and already owned the 17-55 I opt for the 70-200.
Darryl KLein , Oct 28, 2009; 03:25 p.m.
PS
Throw in the relatively low cost of a 1.4 extender and you have 'another' zoom 98-280 before the crop factor!
