 |
|
|
warren
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
* Sharp in centre even wide open
* Good flare and distortion control
* Super wiiiiiide
* Compact & lightweight
* Decent (sub-L) build quality
* Fast, silent AF (USM) with full time Manual focus
|
|
Cons:
|
* Vastly overpriced
* Soft corners with noticeable CA
* Lens hood is extra
* Possible limited future in EF-S mount but I'm pretty sure Canon will produce quite a few camera bodies to suit over the coming years, full frame will remain pro-spec for a while yet IMO (as at feb. 2005). Too bad if we all move to 1.3x though... :(
|
|
The only real option if you want to go ultra-wide on a 20D (or 300D/Digital Rebel or 300D XT i guess). Shame that the corners are so soft and suffer strong chromatic abberation, but when you consider the insane focal length (c'mon its 10mm!) I guess you have to accept compromises.
Bought this for next week's trip to New York and figured I'd need to go really wide. Will see how it fares compared to my sigma 15-30 (very nice, *very* sharp lens but big and heavy).
Plenty of samples available at online galleries here:
www.wprasek.com/photos
or
www.wprasek.com
===============
warren prasek
www.wprasek.com
|
|
 Feb 25, 2005
|
|
cwhitla
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 1, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $675.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent performance, fabulous range for 1.6 crop camera, good flare and distortion control
|
|
Cons:
|
Less center sharpness than my Sigma 15-30, overly expensive
|
|
|
I bought the 10-22 in order to replace my Sigma 15-30 and gain some additional range in the wide angle side as well as getting a more compact lens. Unfortunately, when I compared shots to my Sigma between 15 and 22 mm, I found that center sharpness was inferior with the 10-22. However, edge sharpness was better with the 10-22 than with the Sigma. I then compared my Canon 24-70 at 24 mm and TS-E 24MM to the 10-22 at 22 mm and found the sharpness, not surprisingly, to be less than either of those lenses as well. Since center sharpness was most important to me, I decided to keep my Sigma 15-30 for now. As far as CA and lens flare, the Canon 10-22 was better than the Sigma 15-30. It's really a nice little lens in all respects except center sharpness.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2005
|
|
borodir
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 503
|
|
Review Date: Feb 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
10mm very wide even on my 20d with a 1.6x crop. Really light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price is expensive for what you get. Also the lack of a hood, or even being able to find a hood is hard. Really light.
|
|
|
My copy is very sharp at every focal length. Its an awesome lens, very wide. I am hoping that the new "1 series" camera will be EF-S so that I can use this on my next camera. Works awesome on my 20d. Zoom/focuses very smooth, its lightweight. I put the weight as both a pro and a con because its great to have a lens that isnt weighing you down, but on the other hand it just doesnt feel as 'nice' as my L lenses feel. I love the width of the images that I now shoot, it blows away anything I had before. I would derfinately recommend this product to others.
|
|
|
Feb 19, 2005
|
|
mertmag
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good color, contrast and sharpness, Fast and silent auto focus, 77mm filters, Low flare and CA for such a wide lens, Very light weight, Smooth manual focus. Full time manual focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
No lens hood provided, a bit pricey, Funky gigantic lens hood (people stare at it.) f2.8 would be nice.
|
|
|
Wide Wide Wide! Opens up a whole new world for the 20D. Its optics are sharp. Focus is fast and it doesn't hunt much in low light. No real problem with flare or CA. This lens is Sooo light. But the build still feels solid. The lens hood (not provided) is so huge that it makes people stare. If you want to go wide and you have a 20D or a Digital Rebel this is the best lens. I know, I have tried the Sigma 17-35 EX DG HSM and the Sigma 15-30 EX DG both of which had auto focus and exposure problems on the 20D (later confirmed to me by Sigma). This lens beats them both hands down. Full time manual focus is handy and the manual focus is as smooth as my 24-70L.
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2005
|
|
dkws1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2004
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $690.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very wide, distortion well under control, neutral colour cast
|
|
Cons:
|
Sharpness and contrast are lacking, EF-S mount, not exactly a compact lens, pricey, no hood included
|
|
|
I don't know how difficult it is to build a great wide angle, but this lens falls short of greatness on a few counts.
Cons first;
1) For the exorbitant price, you don't get a hood and only a lousy cardboard box. C'mon Canon, even my $180 Sigma comes with a nice padded case and hood!
2) Optically decent, but not great, definitely not in the 17-40L category. I've tried 3 different copies and all were disappointing at one focal length or the other. Unsharp wide open in the centre (all 3!) and really needs to be stopped to about f8 before it gives good performance. 1st lens I tried had noticeable CA in the top-right corner that wouldn't go away even with stopping down.
Pros;
1) Great WA! Has made a convert of me to WA shooting for sure.
2) Typically quick USM focussing from Canon which I now refuse to live without.
3) Build quality is very close to 'L', very solid and robust feeling. Zoom and focus rings are smooth and don't jiggle.
Overall I would recommend it, but the optical quality was a bit of a let down, at least for the copies I tested.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005
|
|
kandoro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $749.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, fairly fast aperture, 77mm filter, minimal distortion, excellent sharpness, contrast, color, etc...
|
|
Cons:
|
EF-S mount...
|
|
|
This lens fills a much needed gap in the wide angle for APS-C sensor Canon cameras...It has quickly become my landscape lens...After trying a Sigma 12-24 I quickly chose the 10-22...For me it was better in every aspect except for price and being limited to the EF-S mount...I doubt I'll ever own a FF camera so this is not a problem...
This lens has opened up a whole new WA world for me and my Canon 20D...This lens is actually fun and I just love it...
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2005
|
|
Sundor_Gayak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice, relatively sharp lens with good color balance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor sharpness at the corners, even stopped down. Some CA. Do not expect L performance and the price is rather high.
|
|
|
I bought this lens recently due to the niche it's designed to fill. Having the 16-35mm L, I was able to make some observations. With regard to sharpness, they are similar, although the L has better performance in the corners. With the 10-22mm, I noticed soft corners even with the lens stopped down to f11 and 16. As far as center performance, both appear to be capable of resolving well beyond the capabilities of the 20D. With some careful USM, the lens produces sharp, beautiful files. However, I have noticed some CA at the edge of the image with the 10-22mm, but have noticed few with the 16-35mm (this is a rather subjective observation).
I have used the Nikon 12-24mm lens, which has decidedly better performance at the corners at like apertures. However, the Canon is much better with regard to distortion, as the Nikon produces a rather unusual "handlebar" signature which is difficult to correct. Although the 10-22mm has observable barrel distortion, it's rather subdued in the final image. If one were to compare the 16-35mm or 17-40mm in this regard, the 10-22mm would be slightly preferred.
Bearing in mind the above caveats, I would highly recommend this lens to those in need of this focal length. Although it's Canon's only offering here, they've produced a very nice optic.
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
chiqui74
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 120
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide, sharp and constant length
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
I was torn between this lens and the Sigma 12-24 but decided on the Canon. I just could not believe how wide it was. I do a lot of architecture shots and this lens is just perfect for that. It is relatively light compared to my other lenses and I just love the fact that the length of the lens doesn't change when you zoom. The only problem I have with this lens is that it only works on certain cameras. Right now I have a Digital Rebel but what if I wanna upgrade on the future? I'd be limited to EF-S mount cameras or kiss the lens goodbye.
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2005
|
|
Dave Hughes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 239
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide and light...
|
|
Cons:
|
Canon really should provide a hood.
|
|
|
This is a great lens to add to your bag if you're shooting with a 300D or 20D.
I bought this lens at the airport on my way to St. Petersburg Russia, and although the lighting conditions were not good at all I could tell I'm going to like this lens a lot.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2005
|
|
MiDu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 150
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $735.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, snappy optics, great wide perspective
|
|
Cons:
|
variable aperture
|
|
After using my trusty old canon 20-35 f2.8L, and then purchasing the 17-40 f4L to squeeze out a slightly wider angle, I put myself on the waiting list for this one as soon as I heard of it. Since it is not designated as an "L" lens I was expecting slightly less quality.
I was wrong. Its well built and ultra sharp. I did a little comparison with my 20-35 and 17-40. I could not see a color/sharpness difference at comparible focal lengths and aperture. I did not break out any resolution charts for my test (I never do), but If I cannot see the difference, niether can my clients.
It ads a great perspective tool to my arsenal, something that has been missing with these smaller chip cameras. It arrived just in time to do an assignment that involves extra close elephant work.
As an added touch, it looks different enough from my 17-40 so as not to be confused in the gear case, and my 17-40 hood works on the 10-22 as well. Nice.
www.DurmPhoto.com
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2005
|
|
mpenza
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light and compact (100g lighter than the not-as-wide Nikon 12-24DX, 300g lighter than the full-frame Sigma 12-24);
Relatively inexpensive (it's abt 25% cheaper than the Nikon 12-24DX in my country!); Fast focussing; Sharp; Low distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
Currently only usable on 2 DSLRs, 300D and 20D;
Lack of bundled lens hood;
Price (could still be cheaper! it's not a L but priced like one);
Not mountable on current and future 1 Series DSLR
|
|
This is my first truely wide-angle lens on a Canon DSLR and I continue to be amazed by the coverage. My previous "wide" lenses include the EF-S 18-55 and Sigma 18-125.
Physically, the EF-S 10-22 is pretty small and compact (385g). It feels well built despite the light weight. Focussing is very fast and accurate due to the USM motor. The lens surprises me with the sharpness and is capable of resolving fine details on the Canon 20D. It's pretty sharp wide-open too. Distortion is low too (perspective distortion is another matter but is common to any wide angle lens when the lens is tilted). The great optical performance is probably due to the use of three Aspherical lens elements and a Super-UD element (which is similar to the design for Canon's best super wide-angle zoom, the EF17-40F4L). Below's a sample:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost.php?p=1018728&postcount=75
It's a great buy for Canon 20D and 300D users looking for a super wide-angle and intends to stay on the APS-C format for quite a while. But for those that are thinking of upgrading to a 1 Series DSLR, the EF17-40F4L or EF16-35F2.8L might be a better choice (and sacrificing extreme wide angle for the moment).
Main gripe is that Canon did not bundle the lens hood, EW83-E (which is extremely hard to find). For the price (which is higher than the EF17-40F4L in some countries), it's not acceptable.
|
|
|
Jan 3, 2005
|
|
lhassa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Location: France
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $717.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great lens
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Very sharp, good lens.
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2004
|
|
louis__
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2004
Location: China
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
WIDE. Lightweight. Sharp. Build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None, except it looks like a 18-55.
|
|
|
I owned a 17-40 f/4L before and sold it because a friend of mine, who owns a 16-35 f/2.8L, sneer at me of his lens's better lowlight capability when we were shooting inside a Thai temple. I was then all set to buy the 16-35 f/2.8L.
I was aware of this lens at that time but have had 3 (common) concerns:
1) It's an EF-S - It may lose its usefulness when a full frame becomes more affordable in the future.
2) It's not an "L" - It also implies that the resell value, build quality and optical quality not as good.
3) Expensive - being priced almost as an 17-40 f/4L
But after doing some researches and seeing other people's work. I have decided to go for this lens instead. My comments are:
1) It is wide. You simply can't get the same perspective with an 16-35 f/2.8L or 17-40/f4L.
2) It is sharp. But I think it is (very) slightly behind the 17-40/f4L.
3) Build quality is good. But it is not built like a tank as an L lens.
4) Lightweight.
Overall, I am very happy with this lens. Using this lens is totally different experience to a 17-40/f4L. The 3 concerns i mentioned above will become irrelevant when you start enjoying what this lens can do for you.
Wish list:
1) A bigger aperture
2) Comes with a hood and bag
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2004
|
|
luigicane
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2004
Location: Italy
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Don't know , yet
|
|
Cons:
|
Idem
|
|
|
Well, I surely hope not to upset anybody here for , although I just bought the lens
(# 9500034) I haven't tried it , yet.
But I carefully read all the comments here and , IMHO , I got the feeling that somehow it seems that Canon did not really pay the usual attention in the Quality Control Departement , so wide are the rating differences.
Greetings to all,
Luigi
P.S. : I selected "good" , otherwise the post can't be submitted
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2004
|
|
3ABX03
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2004
|
|
Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 26, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 865
|
|
Review Date: Dec 24, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $628.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well built, very sharp, excellent handling
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, and lens shade should be included with the lens.
|
|
|
This is the best wide angle zoom lens I have ever used on digital SLR. The lens is very sharp at every focal length with minimal Chromatic Aberration. It is even sharper than my excellent 17-40L lens, and the zoom range is great. I love this lens!
Julius
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
218
|
461788
|
May 27, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
93% of reviewers
|
$686.70
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.50
|
7.60
|
9.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
