 The best lens I own |
| Review Date: March 30, 2005 |
| Assessor: M. A. Filippelli, Roseville, CA, US |
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 appealing distortion shots)and wide angle shots with fantastic accomplishment.
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 stuff 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 small 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 silent. The depth of field is outstanding. A slim UV filter helps preclude 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 urge using a tripod if you are at all unsure about your skill to hold the camera still for action shots with this lens. The lens it's self is honestly light weight. If you are going to use filters the lens requires 77mm.
The lens can produce some appealing distortion shots if you are taking close-ups and are not at a 90 degree angle to the object. For close-up shots with out distortion it is best to be at a 90 degree angle to the object.
Inside the lens housing there are three aspherical lens elements and a Super UD element that produce clear animated shots. The lens it's self strongly built and comfortable to handle.
|
The answer to the crop sensor conundrum.
|
| Review Date: November 20, 2006 |
| Assessor: Jim Krupnik, Watchung, NJ United States |
My take on this lens is that it is an "L" quality optic in a fine, non "L" wrap. There is nothing else on the market to compete with it (nothing at all), and it produces supurb images. It isn't an f/2.8 lens, but it is close enough for most uses. The struggle from Tamron is a full stop slower, not as sharp, and is dreadful in dim light compared to the Canon 10-22 lens (sorry, Tamron fans, but the Tamron lens isn't even playing in the same ballpark).
I use this lens on a 30D body, and I always keep it on hand if I'm doing any indoor, or tight group shooting. It is the exact key to the stable conundrum of not having enough room to capture all the kids at a birthday party in one shot because your back is up against a wall. This lens will just about get your toes into the picture at the widest setting, yet delivers tack sharp, quaint, and contrasty images. The auto focus is spot on, silent, and quick. It is a must have lens for the active amateur, or any pro using a 1.6 crop factor camera. You simply can't beat this lens with anything available on the market today.
That beng said, do not try to win over yourself that this will make a excellent "walkaround" lens. It isn't. Even at max length, it is far too small to live on your camera as a ordinary lens. You need this lens, even if you don't know it yet, but it should not be your first lens, as it will only be used 15 to 20 percent of the time. At those times, it's performance simply cannot be equaled by any other zoom lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera. You will be amazed by the quality of this lens. It rivals the performance of modern prime lenses, presents a bright viewfinder image, and delivers the goods in tight situations.
This is not a casual assessment, nor a Canon "feel excellent" moment on my part. I developed my first B&W friend prints in 1964, in my own darkroom at the age of 9 (my parents were concerned:)), and have been an avid photographer ever since. Small, medium, and large format cameras and lenses have passed through my hands over the years, and Canon has become my favorite small format brand. Still, Canon builds some trash lenses that should be avoided. The 10-22 USM is not one of them :).
Before you go out and buy this lens, you should by now own the EF-S 17-55mm IS f/2.8 lens. That is the king of 1.6 crop factor ordinary lenses, and includes the awesome Canon IS figure. It will end up being mounted on your camera 80% of the time, and keep you smiling after every shoot. Get that lens first. Then, get the 10-22mm lens. Then, let your view run wild, and plot on serious telephoto lenses for the future. Trust me or not, the two lenses mentioned above will grant you with photographic tools that will astound you. Get them in your kit as soon as you can afford them.
A small warning about either lens.... Some here will argue the point, but with either lens, get a Excellent quality UV filter that is multi-coated on both sides, and built extra thin to avoid vignetting at wide lens settings. A excellent filter will cost a small less than one hundred Dollars, and can cost up to one hundred forty Dollars. The minimum brand would be Hoya Pro 1 multi coated filters, and the ante goes up from there.
Everything else is garbage, including the Canon "sharp cut" filter that costs less than fifty bucks. No kidding, no conjecture. If you use cheap filters, you will never see what your lens can really do. Ever. No doubt that many will respond with claims that their twenty Dollar filter works just fine, but they simply don't know any better, and have never used their expensive gear to it's full the makings. It's akin to a Chevy owner quick judgement on a Mercedes Benz. The Chevy might feel real excellent, but until you own the Mercedes, you just have no clue.
Bottom line.... Make sure that the quality of your filters exceed the quality of your lenses. Yes, at a hundred bucks a pop for a 77mm filter, it hurts, but you will never regret it. Also, Amazon does not stock lens hoods for all non L Canon lenses. The price is stupid high for those hoods, but they make a night and day variation in in picture quality. Whenever you order a non L Canon lens, find a web seller who has the hood in stock, and get it right now. Again, you will never regret owning it.
That's it for my review/rant. Buy this lens. Buy the 17-55 IS f/2,8 first. Buy the lens hoods for both. Toss any "kit" lenses that came with the camera in the trash bin (where they belong), and be very pleased.
|
A lens worth buying a digital slr for
|
| Review Date: September 2, 2005 |
| Assessor: Todd Salerno, berkeley, ca United States |
I've been more or less addicted to wide angle shooting for the last 20 years or thereabouts. Unfortunately, ultra wide angle shooters have been left out of reasonably reachable digital slr shooting 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 less vital 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 by now demonstrated the desirable technological characteristics of a less vital sensor format, so there is excellent reason to believe that less vital than full frame sensors are here to stay. By extending the glass beyond the mount and into the body, and/or covering a less vital circle, Canon and Nikon are providing those same technological benefits to users of their less vital sensor cameras, namely sharp, extra wide angle in a compact wrap. Besides which, I'm much more concerned with the photos I couldn't take if I stayed away from the manufactured goods, 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 antithetical 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 luckily used Minolta gear. In the 90's I bought some Nikon gear to use their 15mm prime lens. In the end, if it suits my purposes, I don't care what the mark is.
Back to the lenses. The Nikon is more expensive and less wide, but it does have the continuous maximum apeture right through the range. The Canon is wider, a tad lighter, and a tiny amount quicker at the wide end. Both appear to be brilliant choices, but I could not consider them independently of the cameras they would be mated to. Since I did not by now own a digital body, it also came down to a pronouncement linking the Canon 20d & Nikon D70s. Here, the Canon wins for me on quality of sensor and a host of other details.
In do, 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 vital for keeping out dust. It's a very like a log built, quality instrument. Focus is quick 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 go 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 early 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 by now gone digital and want to try wide angle, (assuming your camera can use ef-s lenses) this is a right bargain - you get a 16mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm all rolled into one. It makes me positively giddy. Thank you, Canon! |
No excuse not to buy this lens!
|
| Review Date: February 17, 2006 |
| Assessor: DSR, Anchorage, Alaska |
This is one terrific lens! It solves the conundrum of wide-angle coverage in the 1.6 FOVCF very nicely. As others have pointed out, the mechanical build and optical quality (with 3 Aspherical elements and 1 Super-UD) probably deserve an "L" stamp and a red ring. This lens appears to be of nearly like peas in a pod build, quality and size as the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM. Even uses the same 77mm filter size as most of the L's. Overall serration is brilliant, with maybe a small softness towards the corners at 10mm, but I've seen comparisons with other ultra-wide zooms like the Sigma and the Canon blows them away! CA is well proscribed too. There is slight Barrel and Pincushion distortions present at the low and high ends, but less than would be expected for a lens this wide. All in all this is one of the best wide-angle zooms available.
The major criticism of this lens ordinarily comes down to; "well, how long will Canon continue to make 1.6 FOVCF cameras?" or "Someday I might upgrade to a Full Frame camera, then what will I do with this lens?" I doubt very seriously that Canon will do away with the APS-C cameras any time soon. My reasoning is that:
1. Canon just came out with the Full Frame 5D at the $3000 price point. Introducing a FF camera to replace the 20D at $1500 would kill the 5D after only a few months.
2. Having the EF-S lens line by now established nearly guarantees keeping the 1.6 format - mostly because of this lens. To be able to use the EF-S 10-22mm, a chip can't really go any larger than 1.6 since this seems to be the limit of the useable coverage. Using a 1.5 or 1.4 sensor for example would probably start to initiate noteworthy fall-off at the corners of the larger chip.
As I am writing this, the PMA conference is only four days away. My prediction is that Canon will announce a substitution for the 20D that will, in essence be a 1.6 FOVCF version of the 5D. They will probably increase the (by now brilliant) density of the 20D's CMOS by shrinking pixel size down to around 5 micron yielding a touch around the 10 mega-pixel range to compete with the Nikon D200. Maybe they will call the camera the 50D after the 5D since they can't really use the name 30D because D30 was by now used.
In any case, my point is that the 1.6 APS-C format will likely be around for some time to come, until the point where the FF price point drops enough to warrant discontinuing the xxD line. Even then, when that happens, doesn't mean you'll throw your 20D in the trash! You'll still want to keep using it and/or sell it, and having this lens will much increase its usefulness or resale value.
Now, having said all that, this is the only EF-S lens I plot on buying. From the reviews I've read, the other EF-S lenses are of much lesser quality, and all of your other lens needs can be met with ordinary EF lenses anyway, APS-C or otherwise. Plus you get the option to buy L glass.
So, bottom line is buying this particular EF-S lens for a 20D or XT is a no-brainer. It's the best key for wide angle in this format. Hesitating to buy it because "I might get a FF camera someday" is also nonsensical. What I might do in the future is just that, for the future. Not buying a mid-priced car today because "someday" I might buy a Ferrari doesn't satisfy my use and enjoyment of the car today!
|
My photographic "pride and joy", actual score is 4.5 stars
|
| Review Date: March 16, 2007 |
| Assessor: M. E. Boldt, Arcade, NY United States |
I have owned this lens for about 16 months and am exceptionally pleased with it. I have a Digital Rebel (300D), so the EF-S designation is exact for me (for now). It took a small being paid used to, as I had never shot with a ultra wide lens before, but I like the possibilities it offers. For occasion, I can stand remarkably close to a large object (i.e. construction, gravestone, landscape figure) and easily fit the entire object in the frame. There is, of course, considerable trapezoidal effect in these shots, but that can be corrected honestly 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 exceptionally startling.
There was no noticeable variation in color or serration quality linking the two lenses in the focal areas of the images. Both lenses bent very excellent images, but the L lens surely wasn't better. This was a pretty huge bolt from the blue to both of us. The even larger bolt from the blue 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 reckon our conduct Conduct experiment has given him a touch different to tell his customers!
I still believe there are fantastic 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 bolt from the blue!).
Pros: ultra wide angle capability for APS-C cameras, "L-like" build quality and serration
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.
|
|
No video reviews found for this manufactured goods.
