 |
|
|
Big Kahunas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 15, 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
 May 27, 2012
|
|
LeinadC
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2012
|
|
nullismyname
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 27, 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 27, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
razor sharp images with quite small distortion at its widest 10mm
|
|
Cons:
|
---
|
|
|
... not cheap but we must pay for its undoubted L quality
... precise, fast and silent focusing
... light weight
... no vignetting if slim good quality filters are used ( B+W or Hoya Pro 1 )
... no IS ... but the tests in low light or indoors with no speed-light on my Canon 50D ... show crystal clear and sharp images
... what a wonder for landscape and for indoors
|
|
|
Mar 27, 2012
|
|
ivofreriks
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Extreme wide angle zoom range
Light
Decent image quality
Little distortion (with in-camera correction)
|
|
Cons:
|
Distortion at 10 mm
Resolution at the edges remains behind on the center
|
|
The Canon 10-22 mm is a light and relatively compact wide-angle zoom lens with decent performances. For a wide angle zoom lens, distortion, chromatic aberration and flare are well controlled. Who uses the standard lens profiles in Lightroom will not suffer from chromatic aberration and distortion in practice. Relatively speaking, the optical performances at 10 mm are a little less than at the other focal lengths. At 10 mm, you win resolution in the center by stopping down 1 or 2 stops. At the other focal lengths, you already reach the highest resolution at full aperture. At all focal lengths, the Canon 10-22 mm performs better in terms of resolution in the center than in the extreme corners.
In terms of viewing angle and image quality, the Canon 10-22 mm does not differ much from the more expensive Canon 16-35 mm lens MK2 lens. If you take the same photo at a focal length of 24 mm @ full-frame with a Canon 5D MK2 + Canon 16-35 MK2 combination and put it next to a photo taken with the Canon 7D + Canon 10-22 mm combination, it is hard to determine what images was taken by what camera. Unfortunately, the Canon 10-22 mm 3.5-4.5 is not as bright as the Canon 16-35 mm 2.8 MK2.
See full review at:
http://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/reviews/lenses/407-test-canon-10-22-mm
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2012
|
|
furqanfazal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 61
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $777.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very useful focal-length range, fantastic sharpness (especially when stopped down), beautiful contrast and colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Not fast (f/2.8) or image stabilized, though for my use (landscape photographer) it is perfect
|
|
|
Great ultrawide lens with a very useful focal length range covered. Bought it over the Tokina 11-16mm as I needed the extra range more than the f/2.8 (I almost never shoot wide open anyway).
It's nice this lens takes 77mm filters, which allows me to share filters between this lens and my 17-55mm. Unlike the 17-55mm, this lens is very flare resistant which is a big advantage for landscape photography. I only wish this would go as wide as the Sigma 8-16mm though unlike the Sigma lens this takes filters, which I find indispensible.
I also really like how light and small this lens is, and the build quality is quite good (though not stellar).
Image quality for an ultrawide is fantastic and is as good as the 17-55mm lens at overlapping focal lengths. During the day I prefer shooting with the 10-22mm over the 17-55mm because of it's flare resistance.
Other lenses owned: 17-55mm, 100mm f/2.8L, 200mm f/2.8 II (all used on 550D/T2i)
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2011
|
|
WiredMike
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 18, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 76
|
|
Review Date: Aug 5, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $799.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
- Nice IQ
- Have not noticed any issues throughout the range as mentioned in other posts.
- It is just a flat out fun lens to own
|
|
Cons:
|
No hood included for the price paid.
|
|
|
I use this on my Canon T2i and it has a permanant place in my camera bag regardless of what I will be shooting that day.
I am by no means a professional and many of the shots I take are a bit far from the norm and this lens fits me perfectly and lets me be creative with normal everyday scenes.
I did minus on the build quality due to the opening at the rear of the lens that is subjective to dust and small planets its so huge. But as far as the rest of the build quality it feels solid and the action is smooth.
I also gave a minus on the price due to the fact that it did not include a hood. Seriously Canon? A 20 dollar hood and you couldn’t put one in the box? Oh well.
|
|
|
Aug 5, 2011
|
|
Aputure
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2010
Location: China
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jun 16, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
feels great on a canon body, lightweight, looks good, solid colors and sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
not quite up to L standards, no good on full frame,
|
|
ive had this lens for the past five years and ive been pretty happy with it. there are other wide angle lenses on the market with better features, but considering the sum of its parts, i think this one takes the cake. it feels great on my camera, in my hands, and gets me great pictures at the end of the day!
wrote a longer review here, have a look: http://www.aputure.com/blog/?p=2075
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2011
|
|
emux
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2010
Location: Denmark
Posts: 108
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, great colour, contrast and sharpness, small, lightweight, great 16-35mm equvalent range, clese focussing
|
|
Cons:
|
chromatic abberation, slow, distortion in corners at wide end
|
|
This is a great lens. Colour, sharpness and contrast are excellent. 16mm wide equivalent is essential for landscape photography and for tight spaces indoors. 35mm equivalent is excellent for enviromental portraits, a classic focal length. I quite often have this on my camera and a 50 or 85mm prime for tight stuff, my favourite walk around combination at the moment.
The bad stuff.
In high contrast areas there is quite often noticeable purple fringing. With some small adjustments to the CA sliders in bibble it goes away (about .14 R/C and .4 B/Y).
Variable and slow aperture is not great but I can absolutely live with it to get this image quality in a lens this size and weight.
Don't put people in the corners at 10mm, they look very strange, otherwise the distortion is not too bad.
If you like wide and have a crop canon, get this lens. If you don't like wide then get this lens and you will learn to love it  .
|
|
|
May 13, 2011
|
|
shroud72
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2011
Location: Spain
Posts: 47
|
|
|
May 12, 2011
|
|
MarcM001
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 21, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
It's wide.
|
|
Cons:
|
It's soft.
|
|
I'm hoping the collective mind of FM can shed some light on the performance of my 10-22. I really wanted to love this lens but its softness disappoints me. Am I too spoiled by my reference prime, or do I have a bad copy? This image is taken with my 7D on a sturdy tripod, MLU enabled, 1/200 at f3.5 at ISO 400 and it is representative of the performance of this lens in other settings:
http://marc.snarked.com/10-22.jpg
Camera was set to large fine JPEG, with the Portrait picture style. No image processing outside the camera. I used spot focus on the apple on the tissue box and repeated several times. To my eye this lens neither front focuses nor back focuses...it's just soft.
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2011
|
|
NotoriousSEG
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 200
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $769.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp as a newly honed straight razor.
|
|
Cons:
|
A tad on the slowish side.
|
|
|
I have read some reviews that are all over the board on this lens, but my experience should help sway you if you are on the fence about buying one.
My copy is sharper than THREE different copies of the much ballyhooed 70-200L f4 that many consider to be one of Canon's sharpest pieces of glass. It is also sharper than TWO different copies of the 70-200L 2.8--one of which I currently own. I wouldn't say it is sharpER, but at least AS SHARP as my 24L 1.4.
Did I mention this lens is sharp?
Color rendition is superb resulting in very vivid scenes. Distortion is minimal at 10mm and gone by about 14mm. I haven't noticed any flair (but I do have a hood) and my copy has no purple fringing to speak of.
My only beef is that it isn't a constant 2.8. If it were, I would have gladly paid twice what I paid.
I recently took a vacation in which I had my usual 30lbs of gear in tow. After a week and close to 500 shots, it dawned on me that every single picture I took was taken with this lens.
Bottom line: if you have a crop bodied camera, you will most likely want this lens. I know not everyone likes to shoot wide--I didn't used to either--but this lens opens a plethora of creative possibilities that I didn't even know existed before.
Get one, you can thank me later.
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2011
|
|
piotrmac
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 7, 2005
Location: Poland
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $730.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, lightweight, contrast, colour rendition, easy to make it work with FF bodies (works as 16-22mm).
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality could be a bit higher, but it's not too bad at all. CA in corners when used on FF but it's easy to remove in PP and it's actually not meant for FF.
|
|
|
I love this lens. I can compain about build quality and CA on FF body... but it has close to L series IQ. Built quality is also not too bad as I've been using it for over 4 years and it looks like new. Great for landscapes and architecture. If you got 1.6 crop body - that's the most recommended true UWA lense.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2010
|
|
KevinA
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 18, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
OK for day to day use with the Sun over your shoulder.
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare Flare and did I mention Flare......Oh and it's the most ugly flare you have ever seen.
|
|
|
OK it's close to the 17 - 40mm L for sharpness, it's light weight and build quality is good. I am sending my one back today, point this lens towards any light source, Sun, reflection on water etc and it will produce the most awful flare I have ever seen. I have a late 1800's uncoated brass lens that does not flare like this.
Don't think it's something you could tweak in Photoshop either, this is every kind of flare you have ever seen all in one lens and all over the image, it's plain ugly. I was shocked at how bad it is.
Yes it's a decent performer until you decide to shoot something back lit.
The 17 - 40mm lens on full frame handles flare very well and keeps the colour and contrast. The 10 - 22 is not in the same league, no this is not "L" quality at a knock down price, if you keep the Sun over your shoulder you will never have a complaint. Shoot something backlit and you are in for a shock.
I am very disappointed with this performance, the flare is so bad I think the lens is pointless to have in your bag as lots of great images will be ruined beyond salvage with this.
I do have full frame and the 17 - 40 mm, I am not a fan of the 17 - 40 mm sharpness (I have primes for that) but for it's ability to shoot into the light I think it's extremely good. Seriously I would stay well away from the 10 -22 mm if photography is a serious business for you.
Kevin.
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2010
|
|
Todd Klassy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 27, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 288
|
|
Review Date: Oct 7, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $540.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Exceptional image quality, sharp images, good colors & contrast, and excellent price.
|
|
Cons:
|
SMALL amount of color distortion around the edges of objects in bright light, but very, very negligible and a very minor issue. Also wish it was available without a EF-S mount.
|
|
I always say the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4 USM is as close to being a L-lens as any non L-lens in Canon's arsenal of lenses. It's not built like a L-lens, but its optics are wonderful. Anyone owning a Canon camera with a APS-C sized sensor with a 1.6 crop factor would be hard pressed to find any lens from anyone else that can produce better images.
I used this primarily with my Canon 20D and 50D. In both cases, despite change in the size of the sensor, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4 USM shined. Color and contrast were always good, and images were remarkably sharp...especially for a non-L lens. Especially if you are used to using kit lenses on your camera, you will be blown away by the image quality this lens produces. Every landscape photographer using a camera with a 1.6 crop factor would love to have this lens in their camera bag. It is well worth the price.
Here are some examples of photographs I have captured with this lens:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/295270244/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/73646156/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/249790910/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/280290629/
|
|
|
Oct 7, 2010
|
|
nirajphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 15, 2010
Location: India
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra wide range, fast focusing, build quality, weight
|
|
Cons:
|
pricy, not weather sealed
|
|
I own one since this february. I havent used it very much though but it sure is a great lens for landscapes. The sharpness even at corners is better than I expected. Centers are tack sharp. Focusses fast(USM) but hunts a bit in low light(expected for a f3.5 aperture). Its quite light so handy to carry around. Its a lil pricy but I guess thats expected for a UWA like this one. I havent used any filters on it. I am selling off mine just as I am getting a 17-55 f2.8. Else this is a superb lens.
Some pics:
www.blog.nirajkedar.com
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2010
|
|
ic2foto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $620.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
I owned one of these for a couple of years and found it to be a competent lens of professional quality. I had originally purchased a Sigma 12-24 prior to the availability of the Canon 10-22 and while my copy of the 12-24 was a sharper in the center, it was horrible at the edges (even though I was using it on a crop sensor Canon and the lens is designed for a full frame camera). Returning the 12-24 to Sigma only resulted in additional frustration and the lens was quickly sold. The Sigma lens problems resulted in my beginning to do "brick wall" testing for the first time in 30+ years of serious work and have been a revelation. I now test every lens that I'm considering for purchase.
Back to the Canon 10-22: On an absolute scale it is probably a 6 or 7 (compared to my Zeiss lenses). On a relative scale (compared to viable alternatives that I have experience with) I would give it a 10. In summary it's likely the best WA zoom for your crop sensor Canon and I recommend it to my students without hesitation. Cheers
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
218
|
461959
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
