 |
|
|
Rob_rebel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Sep 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $690.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice size, good contrast, pretty sharp and focus fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood extra $ and very wide
|
|
|
This lens is even wider than imagined. I bought it on review and positive feedback and do not regret it at all. This is one of my favorite lens and I like the different aspect if gives me (especially at 10mm). Yes the corner in the 10-11mm range do get a little soft, but even on 8 x 12" print it is not to bad. For the price this lens is, I think they could have included the hood. As for the hood I personally do recommended getting it to help reduce flare. If you are thinking of getting the hood for protection of the front glass element, I would not solely on that idea since the hood is so wide, but little depth, I think it would do little to protect the glass.
I use this with a rebel XTI and am not concerned about the EFs lens being obsolete anytime soon. Also, by then I would just keep my XTI as a second body w/this lens on it (as the XTI would not be worth much by the time EFS [if ever] goes away).
|
|
 Sep 21, 2007
|
|
jim bachalo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Love the lightness...great companion for my digital rebel
|
|
Cons:
|
not overly impressed with sharpness, especially at 10mm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 4, 2007
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14726
|
|
Review Date: Aug 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $659.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp nice wide and colors are fantastic
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
I had this lens sold it like so many others and have missed it so I bought another. I think it's the best wide zoom for the crop camera money can buy. I have owned the Tok and Sig but they can't touch the quality of this lens image wise.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2007
|
|
sigbusyff
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice and sharp, very little distortion.
|
|
Cons:
|
CA in the corners (although less than the competition).
|
|
|
This is a splendid lens; very sharp, with very little distortion for something so wide. Colours are lovely, making images essentially indistinguishable from the 17-40mm f/4L I also own.
For me, this is the best available option for ultrawide on a cropped sensor body (I also tried the Sigma 12-24mm, which isn't as wide, didn't seem quite as sharp, and had quite different colours). The only other option is something like the 17-40mm on full frame.
So why would you consider full frame? For me, the biggest difference is build quality. This lens is decent enough, but it's not as tough, and the controls aren't as smooth, as the 17-40mm. It's a bit lighter, but not enough to care about. You also get a little bit more CA in the corners with this lens, although it's not enough to be a big deal for me.
The big advantage this lens has over the 17-40mm on a full frame camera is the lack of distortion at the wide end. The 17-40mm has quite pronounced barrel distortion at 17mm; the 10-22mm has much less at 10mm. Again, you may well not notice this in a landscape.
So, overall, a very, very good lens which would be next to perfect if it as built out of metal.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2007
|
|
Binh Ly
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3160
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2007
|
|
bergie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $575.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
True wide angle for cropped bodies
Reasonable price
Excellent Price
|
|
Cons:
|
None Really
|
|
I bought mine used on Craigs List, so was naturally nervous about spending $575 for a used lens with no warranty!
But it looked and tested OK, so I took a risk and it has paid off for me. Build is not L quality (and not as expen$ive), but certainly much better than the f/1.8 50 prime.
I see that some reviewers have complained of softness when wide open, but my experience so far is that this is a common issue with many lenses. If you don't need to shoot wide open, then don't.
I've shot a lot of landscapes with this and have been very happy with the results. I typically stop it way down for max. DOF. Images are very sharp and I can get true wide angle with this lens on my 1.6 cropped body.
All of these were shot with this lens: http://www.pbase.com/bbergquist/north_cascades
The only regret I have is that I have no warranty in case something happens to it!
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2007
|
|
sachkan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $675.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, very sharp, 77mm filter
|
|
Cons:
|
Absolutely none
|
|
|
Brilliant lens. Very reliable, sharp in the corners wide open even with a filter. Not a lens to contemplate too much about getting (not that there are too many options for a crop camera). If you are looking for a wide angle lens for a crop camera this is it.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2007
|
|
Bent Mathiesen
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 23, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
wide, very light.
|
|
Cons:
|
soft, build quality
|
|
|
I tried this lense as I consider to buy it. The pictures were very soft at all focuses. Maybe it was a bad example - anyway I did not buy it. The build quality did not convince either, very light and plastic like.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2007
|
|
Binh Ly
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 24, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3160
|
|
Review Date: Jul 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $675.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
light, fast, good price
|
|
Cons:
|
tad soft
|
|
i just got this lens recently and found it to be very useful on my xti. it is light and fast but i find it a tad soft (compared to my other lenses) which is to be expected for a wide angle. flare seems well controlled and as long as you are careful with your orientation, you can get very nice wide-angle pics.
i took it out for a spin right after i got it and you can see some sample pics here (note: a few pics were taken with my 24-105 but most of these were with the 10-22):
http://flickr.com/photos/blypix/sets/72157600465798863/detail/
on a crop camera like the xti, this is a fun lens to own with almost no alternative.
|
|
|
Jul 3, 2007
|
|
Peter Kwok
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jun 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, low distortion, flare resistance, small size and light weight
|
|
Cons:
|
CA & wide open soft corners. But all UWA have this problem
|
|
Excellent center sharpness, similar to my 17-40L, even wide open at f3.5 as seen here.
Corners are a bit soft and lower contrast when wide open. Not as good as my 17-40L, but improves greatly when stopped down to f5.6.
Distortion is surprisingly low for a UWA, even better than my 17-40L.
Chromatic aberration (CA) is the weakest link of the otherwise excellent lens, more than 1 pixel wide.
Excellent flare resistance. It is better than my 17-40L and a lot better than my 17-55 IS. I use the hood that came with the 17-40L, not to prevent flare, but to protect it from elbows in crowds.
I do not care for constant aperture. I rather have the extra 2/3 stop on the wide end where I use the most.
For those that complain about its costs higher than 3rd party lens from Sigma and Tokina, check out the price of Nikons 12-24.
You can see my best photos taken with the 10-22mm here.
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2007
|
|
Ken Schwarz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 30, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, compact, light, good build quality, easy to correct distortion and light fall-off in post-production.
|
|
Cons:
|
Requires expensive slim filter to avoid vignetting, and petal hood interferes with slip-on lens caps that go with slim filters (e.g., B+W).
|
|
|
I did my homework and researched this lens carefully. Even so, it has exceeded my expectations in pretty much every way. Good thing, too, since this is pretty much your only option (from Canon) if you want to go wide on a crop body. I held off, thinking that it would lock me into the crop format: wouldn't I prefer a full-frame body and the 16-35? Sure, but I'll be holding out a few years for the 5D replacement, and in the meanwhile, the 30D and this lens is no slouch, and their compactness and light weight will be impossible to beat with a full-frame equivalent.
Image quality is extremely good. I am spoiled by the superb Mamiya 7 and its super-wide 43mm (a symmetrical Biogon-derivative). Frankly, it's hard to justify all the expense and trouble of using it now; the Canon is SO much easier to use and produces detailed, contrasty images.
10-22mm is a great range. At 10mm, the angle of view is even bigger than that of the 43mm on the Mamiya 7 (wider on the horizontal, and about the same on the vertical). This is wide enough the swallow an entire interior from the doorway...wow.
If you don't have one already, get a 2-axis bubble level if you buy this lens. It makes it MUCH easier to get natural-looking architectural shots. Do not get a bulls-eye style bubble level because you cannot use it to judge horizontal level if you point the camera up. It's very easy to correct perspective in post-production if you keep the horizon perfectly level. If you keep the lens level on both axes, lines are close to ruler-straight right out of the camera. (Residual distortion is easy to correct; see below.)
I don't get the complaints about build quality. It's smooth as silk, and feels tough as nails in my hands. Weight is low, and balance on the 30D is very comfortable. AF is instant, accurate and silent. Does not need IS. It would be nice if it were f/2.8, but then it would be several times more expensive, heavy, and bulky. In practice, this lens is plenty fast.
Distortion is impressively low and easy to correct in post-production. (See correction figures in Ken Rockwell's website.)
Light fall-off is significant. You must fix this in post-production. Don't hold this against Canon; it is inevitable with wide-angle lenses.
I always use good quality UV filters to protect expensive lenses. Note that this lens requires a slim filter to avoid vignetting. (I tested the standard and slim B+W UV filter, and there is a difference worth paying for.) Unfortunately, the Canon-supplied lens cap will not clip into the slim filter, and the lens cap that comes with the filter is very hard to take off if the petal hood is attached. What's worse, you can't take off the petal hood if the lens cap is on; the hood pulls of the lens cap when you detach it. How annoying. Also, unlike the petal hood that goes with the 17-55, the hood for the 10-22 is completely rounded, so you cannot set the camera/lens down on a table without it tipping to one side.
|
|
|
May 23, 2007
|
|
Steve Spencer
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 7, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 6326
|
|
Review Date: May 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $590.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wonderful wide angle coverage; USM; Good color and contrast; low distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I have really enjoyed using this lens. The pictures are sharp and the wide angle perspective is wonderful for landscapes and architectural work.
|
|
|
May 11, 2007
|
|
larkinsg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 62
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide angle -- equivalent to 16-35mmm on full frame, very low distortion even at 10mm! Sharp, even wide open....
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood should be supplied -- sadly it is not. Go to e-Bay....
|
|
|
I just purchased this lens for a trip, checked it out for distortion, chromatic aberration, sharpness and contrast.
It has very little distortion - almost none at mid zoom and long end, and almost imperceptible barrel distortion at 10mm. Never seen a wide angle lens in this range that did anything close to this well on this....
CA -- in the corners at 10mm wide open it has what I would rate as very slight CA -- on the 20D sensor about 2 pixels of Blue-Yellow CA (0.0024 in PT Lens correction) and about 1 pixel in Red-Magenta (0.0003 in PT Lens correction). Generally this is outstanding performance, all wides have difficulties at f4 and these angles... this lens less than most.
Sharpness and contrast -- Very good -- small details on the counter top (I used a cluttered kitchen to evaluate the lens as the details are all known to me, in a scenic there is much less stringency in an outdoors scene -- few right angles or items of known size/with print etc.) are clear and detailed. Writing on stove is barely legible (not in plane of focus!) with pixelation being the limiting factor in resolution even at the edges of the photo....
Generally this lens is one of the best wide angles I have ever used in terms of optical quality. I expect it to be quite servicable in the Grand Canyon where I will be using it's slow distortion to do panorama shots.... I'll let you all know how it turns out to be in practice....
Grover Larkins
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2007
|
|
David Murrell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It is light, and one of the few (but growing) lenses that offers ultra-wide angle for 1.6x crop cameras. Fast focus;
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as I had hoped; doesn't feel too tough
|
|
|
It is very tough judging a lens after using an L lens (I can only afford the 70-200mm f4). I like this lens for interiors and landscapes and it is fast to focus (not usually an issue with these pictures) and has a reasonably wide aperture. But if I am honest it is not as sharp as I had hoped. I haven't done any real tests but I think my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 is probably sharper and I prefer the colours that come out if too. Having said that it is not a bad lens and 10-20mm (equivalent to 16-35mm) is just so useful.
Maybe there are better copies out there; but if I was to buy another lens like this I'd definitely check out the competition more.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007
|
|
pixelda
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
77mm filter size is common across a lot of my lenses
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
A recent addition to my lenses, so this really is an initial review, which is nonetheless positive. Similar plastic build to other EFS lenses, but does have internal focus and zoom movement. Takes a 77mm filter which ties in with my 17-55 f2.8 IS and and 70-200L f2.8 IS.
Not too heavy and a good travelling combination with the 70-200 when I don't want to take too much gear on a trip.
Images are acceptable thus far (only really used f8 as my recent outings on dull-ish, breezy days didn't include a tripod). I know that in the lab, tests do not compare as well as the Nikon equivalent, but the price is still a few hundred GB pounds less than the Nikon, although still a little expensive.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2007
|
|
capt don
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 798
|
|
Review Date: Mar 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as a tack. Great color rendition and light weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Possibly a little expensive, but as others say "you get what you pay for"
|
|
|
I do a lot of Real Estate photography and you can't always get back far enough to get everything in the pic. I didn't think the few mm difference between my 17-40 would justify buying this lens but the first time i used it i was extremely pleased with the results and it's the only lens i use for shooting homes and interiors.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
218
|
461932
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
