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
218 482395 May 9, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $683.18
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
      
Achechino
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 15
Review Date: Apr 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $600.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Great field of view, very sharp, not too heavy, low distortions (lines are pretty straight for a wide angle lenses)
Cons:
A little bit of aberration in high contrast scenes. Focus and zoom rings switched from "L".

Bought my copy in december, and i'm in love with it from then. Very low distortion for a wide angle lens (i use it for architectural photo), easy to fix with PS.
I love the colors and the sharp, very close to "L" series.
I can't give it a 10 because of the colour aberration at high contrast borders, (not too high, but enought for get it somwhere under 10).

If you need a wide angle, buy this.


Apr 2, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Achechino to your Buddy List  
jerrybsmith
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 28
Review Date: Apr 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $650.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Solid construction, quick focus, sharp throughout the image.
Cons:
Lens shadow at wide angle flash shots, very expensive.

Started with the Sigma 10-20 to save money on what I expected to be an occasional lens but found with testing that the right side of the image was fuzzy while the left remained sharp regardless of the shutter or f-stop settings. Took it back and spent more for this lens and love it. Most of my shots are indoors and this is a perfect lens to have on at all times. Working on how to resolve the lens shadow with flash at wider settings but that is a very minor problem.

Apr 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jerrybsmith to your Buddy List  
OllieBB
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 11, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4
Review Date: Apr 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 6 

Pros: Ultra Wide Angle, light and small, little distortion, fast auto focus.
Cons:
My copy just was not sharp at all. Colour rendition shows lack of contrast.

Had this lens for one day. It was very soft and colours looked washed out, low contrast. Maybe I had a bad copy. I traded it for a 17-40 F4 L which is razor sharp and high colour contrast.

Apr 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add OllieBB to your Buddy List  
speedtrials
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 23, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 217
Review Date: Mar 31, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $620.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: excellent sharpness and contrast. nice saturated color. low distortion.
Cons:
not built like a tank like L lenses.

i bought the 10-22 and 17-40 at the same time. Comparing them, the 10-22 is much less distorted that the 17-40. The 17-40 has noticible and heavy distortion almost thru its whole range (barrel distortion from 17 until around 30). the 10-22 on the otherhand has a lot of distortion at 10mm but by 12 or 13 the distortion is not noticible. Pincushion distortion at the 22 end is also very slight. i usually prefer to use the 10-22 vs. the 17-40 because of the distortion.

colors, sharpness and contrast are excellent...as good or better than L series lenses.

the only weakness for me is the build quality. the lense is light and doesn't have the tank-like feel of L zooms like the 17-40 or 16-35 or 24-70. also no gasketing. it doesn't feel cheap, just not pro quality. i also don't like how the zoom and focus ring are reversed from L lenses...its an extra thing to think about when you're switching lenses.

i haven't noticed any of the picture quality issues that "stewarda" mentioned in his review.


Mar 31, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add speedtrials to your Buddy List  
Wirelezzz
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 23, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
Review Date: Mar 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Verry Sharp, Verry Light. Excellent color. excellent WA coverage for 1.6
Cons:
No L / the Zoom focus ring reversed. no lens hood

I have a 30D and was using 17-40L F4
I still had time to have it returned or exchanged.
I was reading the reviews on a few ulr's and had to try this out since i'm not going to FF camera any time soon.
I was shocked how good the pistures where even from 10-22.
I have a huge 22" viewsonic CRT and can't see any diference @ 17mm on either. That means on a print the pictures will look the same.
Excellent lens for the 1.6x glad i made the change while i could.


Mar 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Wirelezzz to your Buddy List  
sdavis8888
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $660.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Wide angle compositions open up a whole new world for 1.6x shooters.
Cons:
At 10mm there is distortion especially, at the corners.

This lens allows you to get compositions and images that simply aren't possible with most lens. To give you an idea about the field of view - I have acidentally included my own feet while getting to know this lens. At 10mm corner distortion becomes noticeable. I was shoot photos for a band and I had to be careful not to let people get close to the corners of the frame or they got a very unnatural appearance. But by the time you get to 13-14mm this effect is gone. For nature shots this effect is often unnoticeable or acceptable.

Overall I am very happy with this lens and I recommend it.


Mar 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add sdavis8888 to your Buddy List  
stewarda
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 19, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 72
Review Date: Mar 7, 2006 Recommend? | Price paid: $680.00

Pros: ultrawide angle on 20d. Sufficiently sharp
Cons:
Strange and harsh OOF areas, photos look "digital"

So, after hemming and hawing for a year, waiting for the 30d to come out (would it be 1.6?), I decided to get this lens for my 20d, intending to use it in situations where the area was too high risk for me to bring my 5d with 16-35. I had read countless reviews and had pretty high hopes.

The lens is satisfactorily sharp--not as sharp as an L, but sharp enough for non-pro use, and certainly sharp enough for most people. The sharpness, I thought, was adequate for me for the high risk situations I intended for the lens.

The reason I returned this lens after 4 hours of shooting with it is because of three strange features that haven't been commented on in reviews as far as I can tell.

The first is a very "digital" quality to the photos. I am not sure how to put this. If you take a photo on a Canon digital point and shoot, like the sd500, you see a slightly "digified" quality in all the photos. Perhaps this is a product of the mild loss of tonal separation in this lens, maybe it is a product of a somewhat different glass configuration in these ef-s lenses...I am not sure. If you want an example, I refer you to the Canon EF Lens Work III book. Look at all the photos taken on "regular" canon glass, and then look at their sample photo from the ef-s lens they have in there (i think it is the 17-55). You will see exactly what I am talking about. Now, I am not saying that this is a problem as some people might prefer their photos to look this way; however, it made this lens absolutely unacceptable to me as a lens for anything more than what I would typically photograph with a point and shoot.

The next weird thing had to do with the rendition of the OOF areas of the photograph, and which might be best described as a somewhat strange sense of color-bleeding. Although color fringing is well-controlled across the field, when the OOF areas are examined, one gets a sense that they are not only OOF but smeared. This creates a harsh and competing bokeh that detracts from the attention directed towards the subject in my opinion. If you use this lens primarily for large depth of field landscape work, you might not notice it, but if you do any limited DOF work at all, you will see it. And to be honest, I noticed it in the larger DOF test shots I took as well. At smaller print or screen sizes, this doesn't jump out, but it does add a feeling of tension that would not otherwise be present. To me, an unacceptable artifact.

The last thing is just as subtle and hard for me to explain. There is a strange threshold in the edge definition of this lens. What do I mean? Well, if you sharpen as much as you might typically sharpen with the 20d for any L series lens, the lines become jagged, as if over sharpened. If you reduce the amount of sharpening, then the edges look much softer than that of the 16-35 L. It was very difficult to find a happy medium, where the edges looked sufficiently sharp, but not jagged and oversharpened.

So, I decided to return this lens. Not sure an acceptable alternative exists...might be better off throwing a bessa r2a in the bag with the voigtlander 15 on it (is this blasphemy?) and actually shooting film in those instances. Or carrying a little film Elan or something to switch the 16-35 onto (which is what I used to do).

So, why did I click "yes" on recommending this lens? Well, because it could work for many people in many circumstances. I am totally spoiled by L glass and Leica M glass, and I have very high expectations for where I drop close to $700. Keep in mind that the 17-40 L (which is sharper and without these weird artifacts) costs less than this lens, as does the 70-200 f4 L. Alternatively, for $300 more, you can have the 35 f1.4 L. And as a topper, the 135 f2 L, which is absolutely one of the best lenses in the Canon stable, costs $100 more than this lens. Any of these is money better spent in my opinion. BUT (and it's a pretty big but), there aren't many options in the ultra wide-angle category for the 20d, and this lens is probably among the best of them.

My recommendation is that you either take your 20d to the store with you and try it out, bring home the images on your card, study them, and then decide whether to buy. Or, buy it from a place that has a no-questions-asked return policy, and then you can try out the lens extensively.

In the end, I have no doubt that many a photographer can make excellent images with this lens. It just not right for me.


Mar 7, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add stewarda to your Buddy List  
stewarda
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 19, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 72
Review Date: Mar 7, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $680.00 | Rating: 3 

Pros: sharp. 16-35 on 20d.
Cons:
strange quality of OOF areas, explained below. looks "digital"

So, after hemming and hawing for a year, waiting for the 30d to come out (would it be 1.6?), I decided to get this lens for my 20d, intending to use it in situations where the area was too high risk for me to bring my 5d with 16-35. I had read countless reviews and had pretty high hopes.

The lens is satisfactorily sharp--not as sharp as an L, but sharp enough for non-pro use, and certainly sharp enough for most people. The sharpness, I thought, was adequate for me for the high risk situations I intended for the lens.

The reason I returned this lens after 4 hours of shooting with it is because of three strange features that haven't been commented on in reviews as far as I can tell.

The first is a very "digital" quality to the photos. I am not sure how to put this. If you take a photo on a Canon digital point and shoot, like the sd500, you see a slightly "digified" quality in all the photos. Perhaps this is a product of the mild loss of tonal separation in this lens, maybe it is a product of a somewhat different glass configuration in these ef-s lenses...I am not sure. If you want an example, I refer you to the Canon EF Lens Work III book. Look at all the photos taken on "regular" canon glass, and then look at their sample photo from the ef-s lens they have in there (i think it is the 17-55). You will see exactly what I am talking about. Now, I am not saying that this is a problem as some people might prefer their photos to look this way; however, it made this lens absolutely unacceptable to me as a lens for anything more than what I would typically photograph with a point and shoot.

The next weird thing had to do with the rendition of the OOF areas of the photograph, and which might be best described as a somewhat strange sense of color-bleeding. Although color fringing is well-controlled across the field, when the OOF areas are examined, one gets a sense that they are not only OOF but smeared. This creates a harsh and competing bokeh that detracts from the attention directed towards the subject in my opinion. If you use this lens primarily for large depth of field landscape work, you might not notice it, but if you do any limited DOF work at all, you will see it. And to be honest, I noticed it in the larger DOF test shots I took as well. At smaller print or screen sizes, this doesn't jump out, but it does add a feeling of tension that would not otherwise be present. To me, an unacceptable artifact.

The last thing is just as subtle and hard for me to explain. There is a strange threshold in the edge definition of this lens. What do I mean? Well, if you sharpen as much as you might typically sharpen with the 20d for any L series lens, the lines become jagged, as if over sharpened. If you reduce the amount of sharpening, then the edges look much softer than that of the 16-35 L. It was very difficult to find a happy medium, where the edges looked sufficiently sharp, but not jagged and oversharpened.

So, I decided to return this lens. Not sure an acceptable alternative exists...might be better off throwing a bessa r2a in the bag with the voigtlander 15 on it (is this blasphemy?) and actually shooting film in those instances. Or carrying a little film Elan or something to switch the 16-35 onto (which is what I used to do).

So, why did I click "yes" on recommending this lens? Well, because it could work for many people in many circumstances. I am totally spoiled by L glass and Leica M glass, and I have very high expectations for where I drop close to $700. Keep in mind that the 17-40 L (which is sharper and without these weird artifacts) costs less than this lens, as does the 70-200 f4 L. Alternatively, for $300 more, you can have the 35 f1.4 L. And as a topper, the 135 f2 L, which is absolutely one of the best lenses in the Canon stable, costs $100 more than this lens. Any of these is money better spent in my opinion. BUT (and it's a pretty big but), there aren't many options in the ultra wide-angle category for the 20d, and this lens is probably among the best of them.

My recommendation is that you either take your 20d to the store with you and try it out, bring home the images on your card, study them, and then decide whether to buy. Or, buy it from a place that has a no-questions-asked return policy, and then you can try out the lens extensively.

In the end, I have no doubt that many a photographer can make excellent images with this lens. It just not right for me.


Mar 7, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add stewarda to your Buddy List  
IdeaDirect
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 22, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
Review Date: Mar 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: good build, excellent image quality, wide-wide-wide
Cons:
EF-S mount only, expensive

I'm very happy with this lens. I thought long and hard before buying it. I own a 20D and a 5D and was very hesistant to buy an EF-S only lens and was tempted by the 16-35L.
Anyway, lots of great reviews so I decided to buy it from a store with a good return policy. I had 30 days to put it through its paces and I am very happy with the lens. My copy is very sharp and has excellent color and contrast rendition.
I also felt that the other brands Sigma, Tokina were more of a hit and miss on quality and possibly the Canon would have a better resale value.
I may eventually sell this camera if I replace the 20D with a FF backup but I love my 20D so much, I don't think I will do that. It is nice to have the option of crop vs FF depending on what I am shooting and now if I need wide for the crop, I have it.


Mar 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add IdeaDirect to your Buddy List  
joeyseager
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 67
Review Date: Mar 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Optical quality very good, mechanical construction very good - and it's a 'proper' wide-angle lens for APS-C sensor cameras!
Cons:
High price? Several reviewers claim it's up to 'L' series optical quality, though, and I can't argue with that - and the price looks quite reasonable against the L line-up.

With an ultra-wide-angle lens you expect more distortion, especially linear distortion (pin-cushion/barrel) than would be acceptable at a longer focal length. With a zoom lens you expect less pin-sharp images than would be acceptable from a prime lens.

This ultra-wide-angle zoom lens performs like a standard prime. It's quite amazing.

Why didn't Canon designate it an 'L'? Possibly it's their policy not to make any EF-S L lenses. Or possibly because it doesn't have moisture protection - although there are L lenses that don't. Whatever the reason, it's not because its optical quality isn't up to 'L' status.

This is a beautiful lens - my current favourite. It's not my most-used lens - at a 35mm equivalent of 16-35mm it's a special-purpose lens that must be used with care to avoid ugly perspective effects. But it makes possible pictures with stunning visual impact and I love it.


Mar 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add joeyseager to your Buddy List  
byteseller
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jun 18, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1844
Review Date: Feb 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $700.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharpness, Close Focus, Color Richness
Cons:
Price, EF-S only

Great lens, probably my favorite lens. Wish it was not EF-S for future camera bodies.

Lots of Samples Here:

http://www.pbase.com/pyanez/patagonia


Feb 24, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add byteseller to your Buddy List  
meg96
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 20, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Absolutely enjoyable to use. The quality is amzing for such a wide zoom. Pairing the lens with a tripod/monopod convinces one that the glass used to put the 10-22mm together is darn near "L" quality! I have a gallery with a growing number of keeper images at--> http://www.pbase.com/meg96/canon_1022mm_f3545_tests At an affordable price-point well below the Canon 16-35mm or 17-40mm "L's", this lens seems to belong among their company. It has become my favorite for landscapes, period.
Cons:
As with ALL wide angle views, the temptation is to fall in love with the sweeping dramatic point-of-view!



Feb 20, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add meg96 to your Buddy List  
Rogier Willems
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 133
Review Date: Feb 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $689.95 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Exellent zoom range for digital camera! At first glance very good lens
Cons:
Does not fit on 10d! Some vigneting with hood.

My wife wanted her own slr so we bought a 20d in addition to my 10d.
Main reason for choosing a 20d is te fact that we can share lenses. I was looking forward to start using the 10-22 mm wide zoom underwater in a housing.

Unfortunately I can not put this lens on the 10d.
So much for compatibility of lenses :-(


Feb 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Rogier Willems to your Buddy List  
LoJo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 5, 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 5, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $750.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Image quality, range, build quality
Cons:
Price

L glass without the red ring. Obsoletes the full frame bodies of Canon.

Feb 5, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add LoJo to your Buddy List  
didierv
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 315
Review Date: Jan 31, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, no CA, excellent color rendition, build quality, and a LOT of fun
Cons:
Price if bought new, no hood , soft on the edges, EFS

This is a pretty sharp piece of glass, and it is so much fun to use. It makes you change the way you shoot, it opened a whole new world to me. The width and the huge DOF make it very interesting to use, I can spent hours shooting without feeling the need to swap lens, thing that never happened with my other lenses.
Quality wise it is very good, better than my 17-85 IS in terms of color rendition and sharpness, but not as sharp as my 70-200 f:4. As others have said it is a little soft on the edges but it is not a major issue. It is very resistant to flare and very useable in harsh lighting conditions, and best of all it is pretty much free of CA unlike the 17-85 IS. All this was achieved without filters, nor hood.

I recently bought this lens used on this forum so I avoided paying full price for it. I probably would not have spent the $$$ if I had to buy it new, but I now that I own it, I feel confident to say that whatever you end up paying for it, it is worth every penny.
This lens will spend a lot of time on my camera.


Jan 31, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add didierv to your Buddy List  
kennyahn
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 37
Review Date: Jan 26, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $675.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: crisp, light, good build
Cons:
price, 77m filter, hood

I use it on my 20D and XT. It's astounding with the 1.6x ratio. I love this lens.

Jan 26, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add kennyahn 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
218 482395 May 9, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
93% of reviewers $683.18
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