Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs

Comment

I bought this lens as I do a lot of night photography in abandoned places and my current EF 17-40mm f/4 L USM lens (which is a top-notch workhorse) just didnt have the width I needed in the cramped places. This lens answered that problem. I can compose a shot literally a foot (or less!) in front of a subject and get the entire thing in the frame. Theres some distortion on a 1.6x FOVCF body (I use a 30D and 40D), but think if how much more it would be on a full-frame body (which, BTW, there are no full-frame bodies that take EF-S lenses, sadly). What I like about this lens: - lightweight - easy to use - uses 77mm filters which all my other L glass use - TACK SHARP! (L glass quality) What I DISlike about this lens: - the focus and zoom rings are opposite from all my other lenses (which are L glass). On this lens, the zoom ring is further away from the body and the focus ring is inside (toward the mount). Thats opposite from any other L lens I own. Kind of frustrating. - WAY TOO expensive! I dont care how wide or tack sharp this lens is, its more expensive than my 17-40mm f/4 L glass and that lens is an absolutel workhorse! This lens belongs down in the $450 - $499 price range. - EF-S mount.... dont know how long Canon plans to make pro-line or Pro-sumer bodies that take this mount. Although this lens is "fun" to use, I dont know how useful it will be for me and my night photography in tight areas. In not-so-cramped areas, this lens is not going to do me any good as I already have a lens for those situations. So it really all comes down to the "tight spots" that I need a wide lens for.

Show more

Comment

Before I settled on this lens, I bought Sigmas original 10-20mm. After four copies with centering problems and a poor response from Sigmas repair service, I opted instead for Canons 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 Canons weight is deceptive. Its 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. Thats 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 youre likely to encounter, its 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 youre in very close quarters, this is a great walkaround lens. If youre not, youll probably want something with more reach. Ive found that its 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, Roosevelts ear on a dime will fill the entire frame, though youll probably need a spotting light to see your subject to focus. The 10-22 costs about 50% more than Sigmas 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.

Show more

Comment

The only lens like it in the Canon arsenal. Read all the reviews online that you can find. Theyre all pretty terrific, and theyre right. Stunning images! I debated saving a few dollars with another UWA (ultra wide angle), but knew that this was the lens I really wanted. It hasnt been off my camera since I got it. It demands a new way of shooting to get the really spectacular results that can be achieved. Pay particular attention to foreground interest. Focuses so closely you can be practically on top of a foreground subject. A suggestion: I like to get down low with this lens. Order a folding cane-seat from Amazon. Lightweight, instantly ready wherever you are. You can sit on it or, if you want to go all the way to the ground but have trouble getting down (and up!), the cane-seat is right there to help! Fast and free shipping from Amazon / Adorama. Three days to my door. The 10-22 is not inexpensive, but its worth every penny. Thanks, Canon! Thanks, Amazon!

Show more

Comment

I took this lens out on a photo shoot with my Canon EOS Rebel T1i the day after I received it from Amazon.com. I had been a bit skeptical about purchasing it because I did not know how much I would need or like a truly wide angle lens, since I tend to prefer telephoto lenses. However, when I first used this lens, I was very impressed with the image quality and with what I saw through the viewfinder. The wide angle of view offers some very interesting new photo opportunities! The images this lens produced for me were superb in terms of color saturation, clarity, and sharpness. The pictures were so sharp that I could crop them, keep only about 5% of the original image, and still have tack sharp pictures! Aside from the cheaper build of this lens, it performs on the same level as my "L" lenses. As an added bonus, this lens offers an excellent depth of field with a close focusing distance of about 9 to 10 inches! That makes it possible to get close-up shots of flowers where every part of the flower is in focus - no more depth of field concerns! When zoomed out toward the widest angle, my cameras built-in flash causes a shadow from the lens to appear in the picture. But when an external flash is used, this is not a problem. I used a slim Circular Polarizer filter with this lens with no problems - no vignetting! Before buying this lens, please understand that it is an EF-S lens that can be used only with Canon cropped sensors, such as the T1i, 50d, etc. It will not work with the full-framed Canon cameras (eg, 5d, 1ds, etc.).

Show more

Comment

I researched at least four ultra wide angle lenses for my Canon Xsi (i.e. Canon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) ~ read the reviews, checked Flickr obsessively ~ and was impressed enough by what I read about the Tokina and Tamron that I honestly thought I was going to go with one of those. However, some less than stellar feedback I found in Flickr led me to reconsider. Long-story-short, despite the significant price difference between this lens and its competitors I opted for the Canon; and after about a week of exclusively taking photographs with the EF-S 10-22mm I have been amazed at the image quality! To be sure the lens has a "sweet spot" in terms of apeture (i.e. from 8 or higher), but working within that the colors just pop (no post-production necessary) and the clarity is outstanding. I am by no means an expert photographer (this is by far the best lens I own), but I know what I like; and despite a sizable price difference the EF-S 10-22mm was worth the extra money (for me).

Show more

Comment

SO WIDE! I love it. really fun for landscapes, parties, and capturing small spaces. The distortion is not bad except right around the outside edge, and even that can be fun sometimes.

Show more

Comment

I dont have too much to add to what has been said by others already, but Ill highlight a few points: - Yep, it is a pretty expensive lens. Should be an "L" but canon refuses to put the L label on EF-S lenses. None the less, build quality is excellent and the optics are amazing. - Remember, it is *extreme* wide angle, so when people say "ultra-sharp" they mean for an ultra wide. At 10mm f/3.5 the corners are going to be a bit soft, but the center is going to be razor sharp and that is truely brilliant performance for such a wide angle. - The flare performance of this lens is amazing, it rejects flare like nothing Ive seen before. Full sun in frame produces very modest flare. It performs much better than Sigmas offering in this respect. - This lens is good enough that it cured my full-frame dreams and desires - at least for now :). Always wanted a 5D for my 17-40 but having seen shots from the 17-40 on a 5D and this 10-22 on cropped sensors Ive got to say I dont feel Im missing too much in the ultra-wide department now. In summary, I felt a bit annoyed paying the price when I bought it, but having taken it on a trip and used it extensively I have no regrets now.

Show more

Comment

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 wasnt 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 dont mind it, I think its 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 wont 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!

Show more

Comment

Right out of the box you can tell this is a well made product but it isnt until you start taking photos with it that you realize the money you spent was well worth it. I went from using a 28-135mm kit lens and am seeing for the first time why kit lenses are not worth buying. The quality of a kit lens, simply put, just doesnt compare. I bought this for DSLR filmmaking purposes and for photographing huge spaces and I am sure it will let me do that beautifully and more. Although, no one should buy this without having a standard lens like a 50mm or a kit lens. This is more like a specialty lens used only 20-30% of the time. 10/10 would buy again if I had the money.

Show more

Comment

Its been reviewed to death here and elsewhere so not much to add from me. Amazingly wide, very good contrast and color, nice details also. The only thing to pick on is the plastic look and feel but it is also the plastic that makes this lens so light and portable. I know this has nothing to do with the product, but I want to add my comments about Amazon. The packaging seems to be getting worse these days, may be they are going green and using less plastic air/bubble to pack but it does not make you feel good when a 700 dollars lens come bouncing in a box with no impact cushion. Having said that, I would have to say Amazon provides the best customer service/support among other merchants that I buy from, I can always buy from Amazon with confidence because I know they would do anything within reason to make my purchase satisfactory. I buy my gear from a few other online merchants too due to availability but their exchange/return policy is nowhere near what Amazon would do for you.

Show more