 |
|
|
Roy W
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 15, 2008
Location: Spain
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Apr 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very wide, sharp, excellent colours and very little distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I use this lens for almost entirely for my business, Fuerteventura Property World (Real Estate), and it has paid for it's self many times over...just fantastic!
Please see photo examples at...
http://www.fuerteventura-propertyworld.com/
|
|
 Apr 30, 2008
|
|
Anthony Hope
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Apr 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp, no flare and very little distortion at 10mm, very good AF even in low light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Colours and contrast not as good as the L's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2008
|
|
aegean2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2008
Location: Greece
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, size, weight, really wide shots.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price perhaps for some, EF-S only mount
|
|
|
Well, what to say that hasn't already been said about this lens. Let's see.
I got it about a year ago, and since then it has been my second favorite lens besides the 70-200 f/2.8IS. The pictures are absolutely sharp, and very low distrotion.
True that at 10mm you do have some distortion at the edges, but what do you expect at 10mm focal length? It is more than acceptable, and actually makes for some interesting pictures sometimes. I 'd avoid shooting people at the edges of the frame, unless you want to distort their faces and most importantly noses. I do sometime for the fun of it. It is a great great lens for enclosed spaces or wide open landscape shots.
I also own a Sigma Fisheye 15mm f/2.8, which is a great lens, but it does not give me the versatility of the 10-22mm, so I almost never use it, unless I am planning a very low light shoot without flash. Since I got this and the 70-200 last year, all my other lenses have usually been left at home. Perhaps I will sell them at some point. I was looking at my pictures and 95% of them are taken either at 10-22, or 70-200 (105-280 with the extender), and 5% at 24-70 which is my other lens.
Build quality wise, I am very satisfied with this lens, it is on par with the much more expensive L lens. I am guessing if it wasn't an EF-S mount it would be an L lens.
My only problems with it are:
1. A lack of hood
2. EF-S only mount, which means I will sorely miss it when I go to the 5D sometime this year. The 24-70 will pick up some of the slack at full frame, and the 15mm the rest. But I will miss it, and the versatility it offers.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1076
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Really sharp wide-angle zoom for APS-C bodies.
|
|
Cons:
|
No hood which is highly recommended. Vignetting and barrel distortion.
|
|
Really a very nice lens for APS-C bodies such as the XTi/400D, 30/40D, and the upcoming XSi/450D.
The Vignetting and barrel distortion is easily corrected in post-processing. Really a nice sharp and fun lens to use. Only drawbacks are that it doesn't include a lens hood and it's somewhat slow on aperture sizes and thus is not good in low light w/o a tripod.
Sample Photos taken with a Canon 30D
-Roy
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2008
|
|
--Lucio--
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2008
Location: France
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 22, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
ultra-wide, flare resistant, distortion free, lightweight, CA is manageable with DPP, fast & quiet AF, close focus distance, decent build quality, non-rotating front element
|
|
Cons:
|
center not so sharp, very soft borders, vignetting wide open, some CA, a blue cast (or 40D WB issue ?), expensive, not weather-sealed, EF-S mount only
|
|
This lens is really fun to use but sometimes it is hard to find a great composition with such an ultra-wide lens. See some web-sized photos of my latest ski touring outings in the following galleries: http://skidemontagne.free.fr/photos_ski/saison0708/index.php
(gear: 40D + 10-22 + Hoya UV or PLC filter, RAW files generally developed in DPP).
|
|
|
Feb 22, 2008
|
|
poodlelvr
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 489
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide.....color and contrast excellent
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This lens is surprisingly compact and light; I owned the 17-40 but sold it since I have the 17-55 and preferred the reach, etc. The 10-22 is comparable to the 17-40 in my opinion; color is outstanding. The lens is sharp and crisp; were it not ann EF-S I believe it would have rated L. This lens is the only way to get true wide angle on the crop camera and I would highly recommend it to anyone. Build quality is good and this will stay in my camera bag.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2008
|
|
Dave Indech
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $630.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, quiet, and accurate focus; light; sharp in the center, and strong on the wide end; not much flare
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive; weak in the corners; slow on the long end; first copy was decentered
|
|
|
I initially started with the Sigma 10-20. After four copies with significant centering problems and a poor response from Sigma's repair, I gave up.
This Canon is lighter than the Sigma and smaller than I expected it would be. Focus is about the same for both: fast and accurate. The Canon has 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.
At 10mm, the Sigma was equally good or better in the center and better in the corners, but only over 2/3 of the frame. 1/3, 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. The second copy was noticeably sharper across the board (4 MB vs. 4.3 MB JPEG of the same frame), so I kept it.
If you're in very close quarters, this is a great walkaround lens. If you're not, it's not. I've found that it's excellent paired with the 28-135mm, or even better, the 24-105/4. Definitely recommended. If the first copy hadn't been dodgy, I'd have rated it a 9.
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2008
|
|
speedblade2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 11, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 44
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice colours, contrast and sharpness is pretty good. Light weight and very versatile for travel use. Flare resistance is decent too. Simply the only reason I kept my 20D.
|
|
Cons:
|
none really, but if i must, probably the lack of weather seal and only a EF-S mount.
|
|
People say a picture says a thousand words. (I'll be realistic and say that I'm lazy to type. :P
You can see some of the pics here if you like:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/weisphotos/tags/canonefs1022mmf3545/
Happy Shooting.
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2008
|
|
Steven Park
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: May 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 486
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $625.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp through out the range. Even corners are decent. Good color and contrast. A must have for crop body.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
A very good lense indeed...... I have been using 17-40L for WA but felt limited all the time. So decision between 5D and this lense was hanging in my mind for some time and finally decided to try this lense out before I buy FF camera.
I was very surprised by this lense. Remarkable lack of distortion @10mm is amazing. Very sharp center and decent corner sharpness brings smile on my face when I see my prints.
10mm brings whole new world in your vision.
Only drawback on this lense. Starting f3.5 is too slow for me to use this lense indoor. I wish Canon to make 10-22mm f2.8 version. I definitely will buy one.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2007
|
|
nden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This is a nice landscape lens, very sharp and clear.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing so far
|
|
I have recently got this lens for few months and it's my best lens so far for landscape photos. Here is one photo I took few days ago.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thuyla/1844622664/
Cheers...
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2007
|
|
netminder0
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 1, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 780
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $590.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build quality for a non-L lens. As wide as you'll need on a 1.6 cropped camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little pricey, but well worth it in my opinion.
|
|
|
This lens is the equivalent on a 1.6 cropped camera as the 16-35 is on a full-framed camera. Very good lens. At 10mm, it is very wide ... and gets that distortion near the edges which is alright for certain shots (but be careful ... it can turn an ordinary nose into a full-on snout!). And at 22mm, it gets closer to the mid-range focal lengths. A great lens for the xxD family of canon's cameras. And, if you plan on doing landscapes with such a camera, I would not hesitate to buy this lens.
A little expensive for a non-L lens, but its build quality is on par with an L. Its construction is very solid. I would definitely buy this lens again if mine was stolen, broken, or lost ... without any hesitation.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2007
|
|
woodburyb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Range, sharpness, low distortion, quality, focus, range.
|
|
Cons:
|
I can't think of any.
|
|
|
I really like this lens.
I first purchased the Sigma 10-20mm, it was less expensive, and though it was sharp, the distortion at the wide end was so bad it wasn't that fun to use the lens. Following a trip to Thailand and trying to correct distortion on shots of the numerous temples and beautiful buildings, I deterermined to sell it. But shortly after selling it I missed the ultra-wide angle aspect, so I ponied up the money and bought the Canon. I am very, very happy with this lens, it's sharp, and though there is some distortion at the wide end (mostly gone by 14mm), it's easily corrected.
My wife and I travel some, so for shooting landscapes and buildings it's perfect. The bonus is its ability to shoot indoors under low-light.
I really like this lens.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2007
|
|
J.D.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2139
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $674.95
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, virtually distortion free, light weight, good image quality especially for price, reasonably fast, very wide, fun.
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom ring in different position to 17-40/4L, not a constant F stop, some chromatic aberration in corners.
|
|
|
Really good, lightweight ultra wide for EF-S mount cameras. The lens is pretty well constructed, though it's not quite as good as my 17-40/4L. From an operator point of view, this lens is very, very wide. I have a 16mm Fisheye in my old film kit and this is the widest lens I've used short of that. The biggest handling problem I've had is that the zoom ring and focus ring are reversed compared to the 17-40/4L which makes it easy to hit the wrong one when in a hurry. Fortunately, with this lens, that is not something I would expect to have to do quickly in most cases.
Image quality is very good. In common with other lenses of this type, there is some image fall of towards the edges and corners. Chromatic aberration, vignetting and loss of edge sharpness are all present but none is excessive and overall, the lens performs very well for such an extreme wide angle in a small format. The centre of the lens gives excellent results in all major areas and there should be little cause for complaint. Probably the most significant achievement is its lack of barrel distortion, which is not easy to achieve in a lens so wide.
This lens is very wide and I find it enjoyable to use. On the other hand, because it is so wide it requires a certain amount of self discipline to achieve good results. I found the best way to use it is to shoot at F8. Because it is not a constant F-stop, I find it better to stay away from wide open settings. Although it's almost distortion free, it still produces distortions which common in this type of lens. Shoot along a paling fence to see what I mean. It produces a sort of twist. In comparison with the 17-40/4L, it actually has less barrel distortion for a wider angle of view. A remarkable achievement.
Because it is small and light, its speed is a definite advantage over other ultra wides but it must come down to the individual to decide whether it is worth the extra cost. I would recommend this lens but I should point out that it suited me better than the other offerings which are out there.
Even though it is my first non-L series Canon lens, this is a lens I could actually grow to love.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2007
|
|
GFerRo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2007
Location: Brunei
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra-wide angle, Size & Weight good for travelling, Quick AF, Sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood not included, a lil distortion at the very wide angle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2007
|
|
bri775
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Oct 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp at 10mm. great contrast and colors.
|
|
Cons:
|
no hood included
|
|
|
Another lens with 'L' lens image quality without the L designation. Low distortion at 10mm. Some CA's but as expected from any lens with this focal length range. Very fun lens to shoot - brings your photography out of a creative rut.
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2007
|
|
Jan Waumans
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 16, 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $590.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing lack of distortions and CA for this wide, sharp, solid built
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
I have this lens for 10 months now on my 400D
I can compare with a 17-40L and do not see any quality or build difference - except the position of zoom and focus rings 
This is a very good UWA lens
No vignetting with a Hoya Super HMC PRO1 UV(0) filter
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
218
|
461808
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
