about | support
home
 

Search Used

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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
217 478208 Mar 4, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $685.26
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.50
7.59
9.0
EF10-22

Specifications:
Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 10 - 22mm; 1:3.5-4.5
Lens Construction: 13 elements in 10 groups
Diagonal Angle of View: 107 30' - 63 30'
Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system, with focusing cam
Closest Focusing Distance: 0.24m / 0.79 ft.
Zoom System: Ring USM
Filter Size: 77mm
Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.3" x 3.5", 13.6 oz. / 83.5 x 89.8mm, 385g


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
      
DaveEP
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3706
Review Date: Jan 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Field of view, Size, Weight, Sharp in the middle
Cons:
Soft towards the edges, some unwelcome CA. Price.

I bought this lens to add to my travel kit. My main camera is a 1Ds2, (which ofcourse this lens does not fit), and for wide angle I would use the 17-40L.

However, I have put together a smaller/lighter travel kit for times when I do not want to lug around a 1 series body (or don't feel safe using it). That kit is the 20D with three lenses, the EF-S 10-22, EF 24-105IS and EF 70-300IS.

When I first got the EF-S 10-22 I compared it to the 17-40L in the 17-22 region. The 10-22 held up well, although the colours were not as saturated at the 17-40L, and the 17-40L (at the same aperture) was a tad sharper, but only just. For 'normal' printing you would never tell the difference.

The colours/saturation can be mostly fixed in Photoshop, and the difference is not enough that I would not have bought the lens, but was worth mentioning.

Given the reviews I read prior to purchasing this lens, I was dissapointed by the amount of CA, even at f5.6. I had to manually remove some of this (as much at 5 pixels from a church steeple against a pale blue sky) using photoshop. ACR could not remove it all using the lens tools alone, so photoshop had to be called in.

For what it is intended for, i.e. ultra wide angle on a 1.6 crop it does it's job very well. The edges can be soft, or even very soft wide open, but the centre is ultra sharp. You just have to be careful with the edges. Stopped down the edges come back nicely. Wide open, they 'are' soft.

I see a lot of people say they won't buy this because they may 'at some point' buy a FF camera. Well, the lens is the right tool for the job in hand today, and what you may or may not do in the future is for the future. You may get run over by a bus tomorrow, and you missed shooting the wide angle today. If/when you buy a FF, will you sell your 1.6 crop camera? If so, sell the 10-22 as well. Otherwise, keep it! A lot of people are keeping two bodies now, so don't dismiss the idea of keeping this lens long in to the future - even if you buy a FF as well.

This lens is a keeper, simply because it makes up my travel kit to cover the ultra wide stuff I had been missing for so long.


Jan 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add DaveEP to your Buddy List  
JORDI350D
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 7, 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 31
Review Date: Jan 12, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, wide angle Extreme, creative possibilities, NO flares, light. Highly recomendable!
Cons:
EFS

After buy this lens, I am thinking about what to do with my 17-40 F4L. But full frame is coming......maybe.... better do not sell it.

It is a very sharp lens and very confortable to use.



Jan 12, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add JORDI350D to your Buddy List  
isogood
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 405
Review Date: Jan 4, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:
Cons:

hello

some tests here

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/lens_tests_and_reviews

I will retry my review tomorrow it seems doesn't work posting....


Jan 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add isogood to your Buddy List  
rdesjard
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 4, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, constrasty, nice and W I D E for 1.6x factor cameras, internal focus and zoom.
Cons:
Cost

I purchased this lens after reading several different forums, and pretty much everyone agrees this is a quality lens. My opinion is just that. The images I have taken with it have been sharp, contrasty and a lot of fun to take. Like any super wide angle, it can have some softness at the edges, but it seems to be much less of a problem than other wide angles I've had in the past.

I recommend this without hesitation.


Jan 4, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add rdesjard to your Buddy List  
isogood
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 405
Review Date: Jan 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: beautiful rich and natural colors and contrast, sharp at center, lightweigth, very wide angle, no flare
Cons:
Chromatic aberration at extreme edges, in certain conditions, with softness.

First impressions using it with the 20D, very happy, meets my requirements.
I appreciate the "Canon" natural, neutral colors and contrast, very rich, great difference with the warm Sigma.

The range is ideal, and it is sharp on my copy at all focal lengths and apertures in the center (better at 5.6), not un "incredibly" sharp (as I read below), but very good.

edges show softness and chromatic aberration in some conditions, but no more than Tamron or Sigma. It is very easy to correct in post-processing.

I appreciate the ligthweight and the smooth focusing.

Not an L lense in my opininion, but not so far. If I need ultimate sharpness, I cas use many other lenses, but if I need very wide angle, it is the only way.

You may see some of my tests shots on Pbase, side to side with my (very good) Tamron 17-35

http://www.pbase.com/isogood/lens_tests_and_reviews


Jan 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add isogood to your Buddy List  
Asmodeous
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 9, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 139
Review Date: Jan 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: 10mm focal length, build quality, colour saturation, distortions, chromatic aberations, resolution.
Cons:
Lack of carry pouch & lens hood. Not white in colour with a red ring.

Ultra wide angle lens are supposed to have Chromatic aberations? I had to overexpose tree branches over cloudy sky back grounds by 2 full stops to get CA out of this lens and even then I had to pixel peep to see it.

Ultra wide angle lens are supposed to have distortions? The distortions this lens has are hardly even worth correcting. I tried a brick wall shot with this lens wondering where the distortions where.

Resolution? Only beaten by my 70-200mm F4 lens which happens to be an "L" lens. Not really a fair comparision, or is it?

Colour saturations where superb, a tad warm perhaps, I cannot be sure but look fine on my Sony cdpe-230 monitor and in my prints.

I wonder if Canon have decided to not label any APC-S lens an "L" pro lens for marketing reasons?


Jan 3, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Asmodeous to your Buddy List  
grumpygolfer
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Dec 28, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $709.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Absolutely everything that everyone has said it is. Puts the WOW factor back into pictures.
Cons:
Cost, but then again, you get what you pay for. No lens hood, add $33.00, no lens case.



Dec 28, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add grumpygolfer to your Buddy List  
garysblim
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 340
Review Date: Dec 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: 1. True wide angle at 1.6x sensor size (16-35mm at 35mm equ.) 2. Good image quality at wide open 3. Good contrast 4. Light (compared to my 20-35mm f2.8L)
Cons:
1. Ok, I knew that when I bought it but it still doesn't work on my FF body. 2. Price is still a bit high but it's now 25% cheaper when it first came out last year. 3. Com'on, it's a L lens in EF-s mount. They should've put a red line!

True wide angle at 1.6x sensor size! It works great on my D20. After switching for a year into the smaller size from film, I really missed the wide angle shot. With the introduction of 5D, this baby's price has come down a lot (15% lower than last year). Instead of getting 5D, I spent 1/5 of the price to get my wide angle shot. I think it's a bargain. The built is really good. Images are usable at all aperture. True wide angle (16mm in 35mm term).

Dec 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add garysblim to your Buddy List  
Keith Barnes
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 14, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Review Date: Dec 16, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Awesome colour, sharpness and contrast. Fabulousy wide. No flare issues.
Cons:
EF-S only.

I bought the Sigma 12-24 to give me ultrawide on my 20D but was massively disappointed with it. So many shots were ruined by flare regardless of where the light source seemed to be. And contrast and sharpness never seemed 'spot on' to me either. On the plus side the Sigma was well built and useable on any body. But what a difference when I got the Canon 10-22! Amazing colour, contrast and sharpness and no flare issues at all. It's well built (although not as good as the Sigma in my opinion) and the lighter weight is good when you're travelling. Focus is very quick and silent and full-time manual focusing is useful sometimes. I love the perspective effects this lens gives when used very wide. I have no regrets about buying this lens at all - it takes the same filters as my L lenses too which is good. The hood is *enormous* and attracts a lot of attention when you use it which can be offputting for some people. I have used the lens extensively without the hood and not suffered any flare or low-contrast issues. I have compared the results with my L lenses and can see very little, if any, difference in terms of colour, contrast and sharpness so maybe it really is an L lens in disguise as people sometimes suggest. Certainly the price reflects that view! If you have a 20D or one of the other EF-S bodies and you want an UWA lens, this is the one! Well worth the extra money.

Dec 16, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Keith Barnes to your Buddy List  
smac
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11
Review Date: Dec 10, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: It's the only way to get wide on a crop camera
Cons:
Laws of physics, optics and economics apply. Not critically sharp, low contrast, slower focus

I prefer wide most of the time and with a crop camera, this is the equivalent of 16-35mm. I was so happy to get back to FF and get rid of this lens. It served my needs, but not my desires.

Dec 10, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add smac to your Buddy List  
kendallkoning
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 90
Review Date: Dec 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $799.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Sharp for a zoom. 16mm eq. FOV on EF-S.
Cons:
Cost, Build.



Dec 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add kendallkoning to your Buddy List  
LMCasey
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 109
Review Date: Dec 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: Very good optics, fast focus, WIDE
Cons:
Some softness in the corners. Aperture is a little slow. Price is high; too high.

I got the 10-22 when it first came out, so I've been using it over a year. The first time I tried it, I was very impressed with the color, contrast and sharpness. Now that I've used it for several thousand shots though, I can evaluate it less emotionally. First, it's too expensive. Second, while it's very sharp in the center, it's just a little soft in the corners; definitely not as good as my 17-40. This lens is pretty much flare proof. OK, you can get some flare in certain conditions, but it's very rare. CA is noticeable, but easily correctable in ACR. 10mm is very fun on APS-C DSLR's. For those of you that like wide angle, I can recommend the 10-22 as long as you've got the $.

Dec 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add LMCasey to your Buddy List  
jaglad
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 9, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 207
Review Date: Dec 4, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Excellent lens,solid build
Cons:
An extra 25.00 for a lens hood and no pouch a little dissappointing considering the price

I am very pleased with the build and performance and would not hesitate to reccomend to any landscape freaks out there

Dec 4, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jaglad to your Buddy List  
Tom Lisciandra
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Nov 22, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $750.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great wide lens. Produces great color and it's sharp.
Cons:
None



Nov 22, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Tom Lisciandra to your Buddy List  
spacesquirrel
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
Review Date: Nov 8, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $720.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: perfect for 1.6x, blazing AF, good weight
Cons:
lens hood sold separately ($30 for a piece of plastic?!), aperture not constant

so glad i decided to buy this over the 17-40L! before moving to digital, the focal length i used most was 24mm. the 17mm x 1.6 just wouldn't do it for me. this gives me room on both ends.

this is an incredibly sharp lens. focusing is great; full-time manual override is useful.


Nov 8, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add spacesquirrel to your Buddy List  
rodkar
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: China
Posts: 7
Review Date: Nov 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Lighweight, sharp pictures, opens up new composition possibilities
Cons:
Expensive (even I had waited for its price to drop), doesn't come with a hood

This is my third EF-S lens and my fourth lens since February this year. I first had the EF-S 17-85mm together with the 20D body. Then I had the EF 70-300MM DO, then the EF-S 60mm Macro, and finally I have decided to invest in this UWA just hours before my trip to Japan three weeks ago. I must say each new lens gives me some new surprises. I love them all. The shop that sold me the lens in Hong Kong didn't have the hood in stock, but I was able to get one in Osaka. It's angle of view is so wide, it does requires some getting used to.

Pictures at <a>href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rodkar/sets/1314522/" target="_blank">here</a> (except my self-portraits which were shot with my cameraphone) were all shot with the lens. Some of them have to be cropped to correct distortion errors though (that's the time I wish I had 12million pixels to work with). All in all, an excellent lens. I read its price is dropping in many parts of the world, I'd recommend it to everyone with EF-S compatible body.


Nov 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add rodkar to your Buddy List  




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

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
217 478208 Mar 4, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $685.26
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.50
7.59
9.0
EF10-22


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next