Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

[steve_m]

I've been thinking about purchasing a new wide angle lens.


I currently own a 24-105L f4.0. I am used to the high quality images I get from this lens. I've tried other lenses such as the kit lens that came with my XTi 1.6 crop factor body, the EF75-300 non L and have been very disappointed with the quality of images. I don't want to go down that road again.


I need a wider angle than my 24-105L provides on certain shots. I was thinking about the 17-40L but I'm afraid that won't be wide enough either. With the 1.6 crop body of the XTi, my only other option is theCanon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx).


Will I be disappointed with the image sharpness/quality compared to my 24-105L if I go with the EFS 10-22mm? Or, should I just sacrifice the wide angle and go with the EF 17-40mmL?

[I chase light]

I had the same decision to make, between the 17-40 and 10-22. I rented both lenses for a week in order to decide. The "hands-on" use, in my day-to-day photography, was ultimately more valuable than reading all the reviews and advice.


I would really suggest you do the same. FOR ME, the choice was the 17-40, and I have never regretted it. It may be different for you, especially because you would have quite a large amount of focal length overlap between the 24-105 and the 17-40. I did not find significant sharpness difference in the lenses (and I tend to be a stickler for sharpness), but I did like the color rendition better in the 17-40 (personal preference).


Even on a 1.6 body, I found it difficult to keep myself out of the shot on thewide end of the 10-22. Also,unless you are trying for that type of distortion, straight lines and objects in the foreground will be out of proportion. This can be fixed in post-processing.


Best of luck...I am sure you cannot go too far wrong with either lens...


Yours,


James

[Mark Elberson]

I own both the EF-S 10-22 and the EF 24-105L. The 24-105 remains on my camera 90% of the time, but it does leave a little to be desired at the wide end though. The 10-22 fills that void perfectly. It's the closest you can get to feeling like you have a full-framer. The exaggerated perspective and FOV is incredible. It's such a fun lens. I was also considering the 17-40 because I anticpate upgrading to a full frame body at some point. The difference between 10mm (107 degrees FOV) and 17mm (77 degrees FOV) is light years apart. If I am shooting landscapes the 10-22 is always with me. I have been very satisfied with its sharpness and would buy it again.

[Daniel Browning]

Will I be disappointed with the image sharpness/quality compared to my 24-105L if I go with the EFS 10-22mm?


First of all, let me say that the 10-22 is a fantastic ultra super wide angle lens.


Second: because it's an ultra super wide angle lens, it really doesn't make sense to compare it with the 17-40 or 24-105. That's like comparing an apple with an orange, or a Boeing 747 with a fighter jet, or a motorcycle with a car. They're all good at what they do, but they're so different that it really doesn't make sense to compare them.


Third, you need to think about what field of view you want. 24mm is not wide enough on your XTi. If 17mm will be wide enough, and you want a good range into the 40mm or 50mm end, then there are many lenses to choose from:

17-40 f/4 L
17-55 f/2.8 IS
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
Sigma 18-50 f/2.8
Etc.



But the Canon 10-22 is *not* one of them, because it's a completely and totally different type of lens. Buying it to use just at 17-22mm is a mistake, in my opinion: many other 17-50 f/2.8 lenses are faster, better, and cheaper.


But if you *do* want to use something wider than 17mm, then you should consider the 10-22mm, because it's an excellent lens in that range. There are other choices from Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina as well.


Some photographers would not be happy with the 10-22 + 24-105, because they use the 17-50 range so much that they would be constantly switching lenses. The 17-50 is the most "typical" range.


But I love ultra wide angle fields of view, personally, so I would highly recommend the Canon 10-22.

[Tony Printezis]

Steve,


I have all three lenses you mentioned. I got the 17-40 first, as my general purpose lens on my XTi and I loved it. But I have to say since I got the 10-22 and the 24-105 I don't use my 17-40 as much (only in certain situations). The 10-22 and the 24-105 compliment each other very nicely (when I want to travel "light", these are the only two lenses I carry). As it's already been said, the focal length difference between 10mm and 17mm (on a crop body) is huge. And I personally love shooting extra wide. It's not for all situations and you can totally overdo the effect, but I personally love it.


Regarding image quality, the 10-22 it's maybe not quite as sharp as the 17-40, but it's sharp enough so that I don't need to switch to the 17-40 for focal lengths between 17 and 22. Also, remember that typically extra wide lenses might not be as sharp as longer ones. And, BTW, some folks claim that the 10-22 outperforms in some respects the 17-40 when the latter is mounted on a FF body.


If you're interested, get in touch and I can point you to some shots I've taken with the 10-22 so that you can check them out.


Tony

[steve_m]

Tony,


It would be great to see your images. Can you post a link?

[Tim]

I know that the Tokina 11-16 has been getting great reviews, if you can rent that one and the 10-22 you might want to compare them.

[Tony Printezis]

Can you post a link?


I'd rather not, as I'm worried all my bandwidth will be sucked in. Can you somehow get in touch with my profile?


Tony

[steve_m]

Tony,


I sent a request through your profile.


Thanks!


Steve

[Tony Printezis]

Steve,


I send you a message through your profile. Did you get it?


Tony


PS Sorry everyone for the spam, I'm still trying to work out how the forum works.

[steve_m]

Yes, I got your message. I have looked at a few images but not a lot of them yet.


Thank you very much for your help. I can tell by the few images that I've looked at, I'll get a good idea of what the lens will do for me.


Awesome photography Tony.


Thanks,


Steve

[Tony Printezis]

Steve,


Hi. Thanks. There's no hurry and you don't have to look at all / any of them. :-) I just wanted to make sure you got my message. If you need anything else re: the 10-22 or the other two lenses, please get in touch.


Tony

[George Slusher]

Get both. [6] Seriously, as others said, they're very different.


The 17-40L ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) would be more of a "general purpose" or "walking-around" lens, the equivalent of 27-64mm on a full-frame camera. That would be an improvement over your 24-105mm (equivalent to 38-168mm)--a factor of 24/17 = 1.4. (In other words, the 17mm will show a subject at the same size as the 24mm will at 1.4x the distance.) It's a minimal "general purpose" lens due to the narrow zoom range, but isn't too expensive. However, as Bryan says, it's not a good "people" lens for portraits, unless you discipline yourself to back off and crop later.


You might consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) lens--longer focal length range (equivalent to 27-88mm), wider aperture (great bokeh!) and IS--plus possibly better image quality. (See Bryan's reviews.) It is more expensive, however: $1030 vs $700 at B&H, though I got a used 17-55mm for $800 on eBay and am very pleased with it. A bit cheaper, yet, is the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) ($515 at B&H), my second "good" zoom. The image quality is very good (watch for barrel distortion at the low end, however) and it has IS and a 5x zoom range (27-136mm). It is slower than the 17-55mm lens, but not much slower than the 24-70mm. The 17-85mm IS is the lens I used to keep on my 30D. (I'm leaving the 17-55mm IS lens on now to force myself to use it.)


The 10-22mm is equivalent to the 16-35mm on a full-frame camera. Compared to your 24-105mm, at the low end, the ratio is 24/10 = 2.4, considerably different. It's not a general purpose lens, at all, but a super-wide-angle that may be less--or more!--useful for you, depending upon what you want to do.


Contrary to popular belief (well, MY popular belief before I wised up), a super-wide-angle lens is not really for "getting it all in." Landscapes with such a lens can be pretty boring, plus you'll get a LOT of foreground and sky. Sometimes, you may want that--e.g., you want to show a desert landscape that looks endless. My more common use is to get really, really, really close to the subject, without magnifying the image, as a macro lens would do. This gives a very different perspective than taking the subject from much further away with a longer lens.


Note: the lens focal length has nothing to do with perspective. Perspective depends entirely upon the relative position of the viewer and the subject. To prove this, set up a shot with a wide-to-tele zoom (e.g., the 17-85mm Canon) and take the same scene at different focal lengths. Then crop the shots taken at shorter focal lengths so that the subject is the same size as the longest. The shots will be identical (except for the number of pixels, which you can correct by scaling them all to the same size). What does change the perspective is the distance to the subject. To "fill the frame" with a 17mm lens, you'll have to be at 1/3 the distance that would fill the frame with a 50mm lens; for 10mm, you'd have o be 5x the distance. We don't notice that exaggerated perspective so much when we look at something up close, as our brains compensate. A photo doesn't give us the clues that the subject is very close. (That's also why telephoto shots look "flat"--our brains tell us that the image is only a few feet away.)


I don't have the Canon 10-22mm, but I do have a Sigma 10-20mm. Here are two examples, both taken at 10mm.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_4005_5F00_600.jpg





This was taken maybe 10 inches from the apple in front. The two apples were about a foot apart, but it looks like a lot more because of the perspective, which also makes the apple look rounder.





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.54/IMG_5F00_4022_5F00_600.jpg





The second was a bit further away, but still very close. If I had backed off several feet to use a longer focal length, the perspective would have been very different.


The best thing to do would be to borrow both lenses and try them out for few days.

[George Slusher]

"Then crop the shots taken at shorter focal lengths so that the subject is the same size as the longest."


I should have said, "Then crop the shots taken at the shorter focal lengths so that the framing is the same as the longest." That's easiest to do if you use focal lengths that are in ratios that are easy fractions, like 20mm, 40mm, and 80mm. You'd crop the 40mm shot by using a box at the center that is 1/2 the dimensions of the original. For 20mm, you'd use a box with 1/4 the dimensions of the original.

[steve_m]

Those are good ideas. Thanks for all your comments regarding the lenses in question. Much appreciated!