Canon EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM Lens Review

Anyone for a comparison with the Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM? I have the latter and am very happy with it. Plus, it's full frame. But I'd be interested in opinions of thos who have used both lenses.

Tom

Don't forget about the Sigma EX 10-20mm!

I already did those (though not as full reviews).

See http://www.photo.net/equipment/wideangle-dslr.html

Wow, this lens looks rather soft at the wide angle when you shoot wide open... hmm. I think that Leica needs to make a wider wide angle zoom now.

Corner at 10mm, f3.5, slighlly tweaked in PhotoShop

The lens isn't that soft. A 100% crop represents a section of something like a 24" x36" print viewed close up.

Even slightly away from the very corner things sharpen up, plus the type of shot that you'd take wide open, probably isn't one in which corner sharpness would be a big issue. For landscapes etc. you'd almost certainly be stopped down to around f11

The images I posted were the most severe test I could devise. I could certainly have posted shots that looked better than fine dark lines against a bright sky!

I suppose a Leica 10-22mm zoom might be better (or not), but I suspect I'd need to remortgage my house to buy one...and I suspect they'll never make one.

It all really comes down to whether you want to shoot with a lens or measure it!

Nice review Bob, I've owned this lens for a few weeks now and continue to be amazed by the results I get from it. I no longer pack my 18-55 as I have the 10-22, a 24 f/2.8 and a 50 f/1.4 - superb results across the range.

Regarding the CA, for those that are unaware, Adobe camera raw, or most any processing software, can easily correct color fringeing.

DxO will also correct color fringing automatically. It reads the EXIF data so it knows which lens was used and it applies corrections for CA and vignetting appropriate for that particular lens.

DxO used to be very expensive and you had to buy a module for each lens and camera. However they came to their senses and now sell the whole lot with modules for all lenses and bodies for around $150.

I'm evaluating it now for a future review on photo.net. So far it seems like an OK package. Only downside is that it's a bit slow. No problem for single images, but batch processing a few hundred images could take time.

It works on both RAW files and JPEG images.

Last week I used this lens really for the first time. I really like it. I particularly like the close focus capability, which I do not think Bob mentioned, but I am not sure. It focuses to 24cm, which at 10mm gives you a larger image than even the 16-35mm on a full frame. The effects are awesome (and I am not a teenybopper overusing that term). I took pictures of my kids' faces at 10mm at close focus. First of all, they naturally smile and laugh because of how absurdly close the lens is. Second of all, you get a great caricature effect. I do not recommend using it on your wife, though ;-).

Then, I took close ups at 10mm of a few maple leaves still on a sapling. The picture looks great, with a blurred background and everything in the background tiny. However, there was a wierd effect at the out of focus corners. It may just be the stretching typical on extreme rectilinear wide angles or it could be severe coma and astigmatism; I am not sure. Bob, how would I upload a photo to show the effect I mean?

Larry - you just follow the upload instruction given when you post your comment. Make sure the image is under 511 pixels wide.

I didn't make a big deal out of close focusing because I don't think the 10-22 makes a good macro lens! It does focus (as the article says) to 24cm (9.5") and you can get some interesting effects, but you'll probably tire of those effects eventually. It's a bit like a fisheye in that initially fisheye shots look "cool", but that feeling generally wears off!

It is pretty close focusing for a zoom though, so maybe I should have made that one of it's "features", though the Tamron 11-18 is similar at 25cm close focus and the Sigma 10-22 also close focuses to 24cm.

It's certainly possible that aberrations increase when close focused. In fact I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Lenses are usually optimized for the focus distances most commonly used. It's virtually impossible to make a wideangle zoom optimized at both infinity and 24cm focus distance! Even for a 50mm prime macro lens it needs special optical designs using floating elements to do it.

I rented this lens for a few weeks during a recent trip to southern Utah area (20D).

I really enjoyed it.

There are many lens reviews, but your reviews are always so usable, Bob. We are all fortunate for them.

Many thanks!

Jacob 10mm Close-Up

Thanks Bob. I just wasn't patient enough to go through all the screens. Here's the picture of my son Jacob:

1/80s, f/8.0, ISO 100, 10mm, Handlheld

Maple Leaves 10mm Close-Up

Here are the Maple Leaves. Note the weird stretched corners.

1/250s, f/5.6, ISO 800, 10.0mm, Handheld

Anna Ruby Falls, Georgia 10mm

Here is a picture of Anna Ruby Falls near Unicoi SP and Helen, Georgia. This is actually the picture that best illustrates the capabilities of this lens at 10mm. Be aware the last two pictures were not processed in Photoshop, but this one was to bring out the branches against the sky. Also be aware that these falls are about 150-200 feet high; you are not even seeing the pond in the midfield. Only a 10mm lens can give you the full falls on a 1.6x crop camera. The picture is skewed a little to the left to hide the observation platform.

10mm, f/5.0, 1/60s, ISO 200, Handheld

I glad that Bob is reviewing equipment in such an easely understandable way. Thanks. I have a question now. I had my Rebel kit lens EF-S 18-55 and it gone totaly out of it (electronics), was refusing to take pictures at all (after working fine for 2 years). I was thinking to tape the contacts and use it as manual lens, but then my husband cut off the 'S' mount and now it work fine again on my 20-D, I did not taped the contacts or had anythings else done to it, electronics work now. I don't know WHY..?.. still I am glad for that.

Now is the question:

I was thinking to buy a EF 16-35 with hope that when I get a FF camera I will not have to buy lens again. Now I am thinking that the EF-S 10-22 is much cheeper, and so what if i use it on 20-D as is and if and when I get a FF camera, I can simply cut the 'S' off. Bob, I did read that it will not give a FF picture on a FF camera, but I am still curious to know (and would be really nice to see) what it will give in that case. My speculation is that quolity won't be affected, just the size will be same as on 20-D. Right?

Vrindavan,

As Bob writes in the second paragraph, using this lens on a FF camera will destroy the camera. The mirror will hit the back of the lens when you try to take a picture.

Andrew

I'm sure you could take a hacksaw to it and make it mount on a full frame camera. You'd get a nice cropped circle image over most of the range and if you shot at 10mm the mirror would smash into the rear element.

I suppose if you didn't care about the dark sides and corners and you were smart enough never to zoom wider than some lower limit (12mm?) and take a shot, you could do it. I'm not sure why you'd want to, but you could.

If you had an EOS 10D, you'd probably be fine, though you'd probably be a lot better off in many ways just to buy a Digital Rebel XT or EOS 20D to mount the (unmodified) lens on.

If you bought a full frame camera one day, the smart thing to do would be to sell the 10-22 on Ebay and buy a 17-40 for the FF body (or 16-35 if you could afford it).

Thank you, Bob. I am sorry for asking silly questions, but I rather sound silly then actually do silly things. I was curious about this. Not any more. So, now I can move on and get some lens that will be suitable for my work, even if i get a FF camera in future. Thanks a lot for your explanations. Hare Krishna.

I have recently bought this lens & I am concerned about the focusing ring. On my lens the focusing ring rotates ok but feels slighly loose & rattles. This is only a minor niggle...has anybody else had this problem ?

HI Bob,

Can I use this lens on my 10D?

I would suggest using www.resellerratings.com to investigate any camera shop that is offering lenses for $150 dollars below regular retail prices. I would REALLY encourage you to investigate this particular vendor before making a choice on whether to purchase from them or not.

I had this lens for a while, it's OK at 10mm but mine was particularly soft at 22mm at all apartures, 10mm corners were not sharp, well depends to what your expectations are but it was not comparable to my 17-40 on a full frame. Also lots of fringing... about the ring, it doesn't feel as nice and robust as the one on "L" lenses but I wouldn't say it was loose etiher, certainly didn't make any sounds during focusing...well I had to let it go on ebay guess I will try Sigma 10-20 EX next...

Well, the Leica is just a name , nothing more than that, why worship for an old outdated tech?

Do you still drive a classic car ? look at the trashy quality of the M8 , they can not make any digital camra , the M8 is made by Kodak.

All other modern Leica cameras are Panasonic made.

Plus, they never made a good zoom , just a silly prime.

Hello everyone, below is my Amazon.com review. Can't tell you all how helpful your reviews and feedback have been in educating me in this wonderful medium. Hopefully my post can help out the next guy. Thanks kindly.

The Canon 10-22mm EF-S wide angle zoom or the 17-40mm EF "L" zoom?

I deliberated this decision for over a month, having physically tested both lenses on my 350D crop frame DSLR at local camera shops and spending a near ridiculous amount of time reading through indispensable online reviews such as this one. With the price for each being roughly the same, the decision came down to the 10-22's ultra-wide capability vs. the 17-40's build quality.

I ended up choosing the 17-40 and here's why: -Incredible optics and sharpness. If you're like me and have never owned an "L" series lens before, you'll be able to see the difference in optical construction quality before you ever snap a digital shot. It's evident in the viewfinder just how precise this lens is. -Longevity: I'm the kind of guy who likes high quality equipment and can see myself upgrading to a full-frame sensor camera body sooner rather than later. -Wide vs. Ultra-wide: You'll often read warnings of the difficulty in framing sub-20mm ultra-wide compositions. It's a valid point. Only certain scenarios lend themselves to 180 degree-style framing but most of the time you'll be challenged to keep all of the uninteresting junk out of the frame. I was a little worried about 17-40mm's 27-54mm conversion when used on a crop frame. Would it be wide enough? Answer, yes. 27mm is plenty wide for most applications and with the crop factor, I get almost zero barrel distortion at the widest edges. In my estimation, the 10-22 is more of an effect lens whereas the 17-40 is much more of an everyday multi-purpose working lens.

In summary, if the focal length range of the 17-40 doesn't overlap too much over your current lens kit and you favor high-quality wide over good quality ultra-wide, then this lens is right for you.

*NOTE: If the 17-40's inclusion of a lens hood is influencing your decision in anyway over the 10-22, don't let it be. The hood is basically a pain in the rear due to it's ridiculous size and shape. Difficult to pack and you'd probably be better served just picking up a 77mm protection filter.

I have both the 10-22mm (second-hand) and the 17-40mm. I find that I use the 17-40mm much more often because I'm not a true scenic photographer. However, there are those moments when I need the superwide coverage for the glorious sunrise at the beach. The 10-22mm is more of a once-in-a-while lens for me. Image quality is very good. Don't dismiss it because it doesn't have the red L ring. If you need the coverage for scenic shots, this lens will do the job fine. It's just not an everyday lens.