Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 10-22mm EF-S Better Than The 17-40mm L?  
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

When this lens was first announced, I had aspirations of adding it to cover my WA needs. Then I heard people say, " You like "L", lenses, go for the Canon 17-40mm!"

Well, that all sounds nice and the 17-40mm might be a good lens and all, but, its just not wide enough for me. I thought about the Sigma 15-30mm or the Sigma 12-24mm lens. They both had decent reviews. Something told me to go back and check Fred Miranda to see if there were any reviews up for the new Canon 10-22mm. What I saw astonished me...

Comments such as:
"This is the best wide angle zoom lens I have ever used. The lens is sharp at every focal length. I love this lens."

"It is even sharper than my excellent 17-40L lens, and the zoom range is great. I love this lens!"

"This lens is so good, I am selling my 17-40mm L. It's the lens I've been waiting for. It is better than the 16-30mm L in sharpness"



The main gripe seems to be that for the cost, a lens hood should be included.


http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=221

This lens might have a spot in my bag after all.

Also, I know this lens should really be compared to the Sigma 12-24mm as its not really the same category as the 17-40mm other than the 17-40mm being semi wide and the 10-22mm covering a short portion of that (17-22mm). It just amazed me to see people were dumping their 16-35mm and 17-40mm L lenses in favor of this...



[Edited 2005-01-23 13:42:29]

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5045 times:

My main question is this:

If it's an EF-S lens, why does it cost so friggin much? I thought the EF-S lenses were designed with the average consumer in mind (or college kid  Smile/happy/getting dizzy )


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4994 times:

G'day Chad maybe this time i can help you out.
Picked up a 10-22 in Hong Kong two weeks ago and i have been giving it a fair checkout.
I did some head to head testing against my 17-40 and from everything i have done it is as good in every respect as the 17-40.
Its sharp at 10mm and F3.5 all the way through and sharper than the 17 at F8 and above.
I have been pretty surprised by how good it performs.Very little pin cushion and good saturation and did i mention its wide,and i mean wide.
Its just great having a true wideangle lens for a change.
Oh and its wide!!
In Hong Kong it cost me a little less than the new price of the 17-40 but here in Australia its more expensive than te 17-40.
Its good build and far more solid than other non L Canon glass.Smooth rings and its quite a bit lighter than the 17.
Took these on New Years eve.


Here are the url's if the links don't work.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/dehowie/bigviewnew.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v236/dehowie/newyearss.jpg
Its worth every cent to finally have a true wideangle for the EOS non 1D series camera's.To boot its a very good lens and every inch L quality glass but without the weight or red band.
Darren



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Hiya Darren,

Thanks! Great shots. Ill be over in HKG later this summer. I dont know if I will be buying any equipment, but, you never know.  Big grin

Its more expensive than the 17-40mm here too. I just wish it came with a lens hood! Did you buy a lens hood with it?



User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4965 times:

Well it uses the same hood as the 17-40 so at the moment i havn't bought one.
When i get rid of the 17-40 i guess i'll have to get one but it is a pain that such an expensive lens comes without a hood.
The lens cost 5200HK over near Stanley St on Hong Kong island and it was the best price.Most of the shops in Mong Kok where asking 5600 and wouldn't deal.
An excellent shop with 300/2.8's and the 400/2.8 in stock was Hing Lee in Lyndhurst Terrace which is where i got it.
The 500F4 was 51000HK so i am not sure how that compare with Adorama but its probably more expensive i'd say as the big glass is real cheap i n the US,
Nice gent runs the shop with a great canon range international warranty and speaks good English.
If you want some unedited crops out of the 20D just drop me a line.
Seeya
Dazz



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4942 times:

In the US, the 10-22mm is approximately $100.00 more expensive than the 17-40mm.

I converted 51000 HKD to US and it came to $6,540.52. Thats $1100.00 more than it costs in the US.  Big grin



User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

But I thought the EF-S lenses were the AFFORDABLE Ones.  Crying

User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4913 times:

But I thought the EF-S lenses were the AFFORDABLE Ones


Just because the 18-55mm was a "cheap" lens, doesnt mean the others need to be. The 18-55mm was the first EF-S lens, and a very good lens IMHO. I believe if the 18-55mm were to have came out with the 10-22mm and the 17-85mm it would have cost more, maybe around $250 or slightly more.





[Edited 2005-01-24 09:15:22]

User currently offlineAndrewuber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4862 times:

Just found this, thought it might help. Some great comparisons with Sigma are in this article-

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

This article says that the Canon 10-22mm is going for around $800 in the U.S., but there are three of them for sale right now on E-Bay for $729 on Buy-it-Now. Not bad considering the results - I'd love to see some flight deck shots with this lens!

Drew



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineBronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 810 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4834 times:

How effective can a lens hood be on a lens that is 10mm wide? Wouldn't the lens hood be very short, or have to angle out so much that it loses its purpose?


Jet City Aviation Photography
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4821 times:

I'd love to see some flight deck shots with this lens!

Andrew,

Exactly!  Big thumbs up

Although, I havent decided if I am going to buy the Canon 28-105mm USM II and the Canon 50mm F/1.4 before cruise, or just go for the 10-22mm. Ill have to make a decision soon. The 18-55mm does a great job IMHO, and could get me through the next year .

I have also had some thoughts about still going for the 17-40mm F/4 L and buying the Sigma 15mm F/2.8 Fisheye.

First I need to get the 20D. I ordered some other stuff with it, and it seems that the other stuff is backordered. Just my luck... If its not sent by next week Ill cancel the order for now.



How effective can a lens hood be on a lens that is 10mm wide? Wouldn't the lens hood be very short, or have to angle out so much that it loses its purpose?

I think you are right. If you are at 10mm focal length, it would seem to me that some of the hood might be visible in the photo. Even withought a hood, you might have to take care not to photograph your feet lol...  Big grin


User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Actually you might be able to do some cool artistic effects with the lens hood on a wide-angle like that, actually I have a lens hood that I can mount on my 18-55mm where if zoomed all the way out, you can see the hood at the corners.

User currently offlineJan Mogren From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2043 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4792 times:

>cool artistic effects <

Maybe it is good there is no Artistic category on a.net!  Big thumbs up

/JM



AeroPresentation - Airline DVD's filmed in High Definition
User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4757 times:

I looked at the 10-22 EF-S a few days back as well. Seems quite handy for many situations.

What wondered me was "EF-S lens mount, exclusively for EOS 20D and Digital Rebel bodies"?

It would still work on other EOS bodies, or? (have a 10D my self)

All the best, Michael



It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4753 times:

Canberra said: It would still work on other EOS bodies, or? (have a 10D my self)

As you said in your post it is "exclusively for EOS 20D and Digital Rebel bodies" which means that it won't work on your 10D. However, there is a possibility to remove a part from the lens as mentioned in this thread. This has worked on the EF-S 18-55, but I haven't heard of anyone trying it on the EF-S 10-22. And as mentioned, you do everything on your own risk...

/Robert



Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
User currently offlineCanberra From Denmark, joined Apr 2004, 310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4749 times:

"Thanks" for confirming my fears!

/Michael


(I think it is a shame Canon starts making dedicated digital lenses unusable for 35mm SLRs. I liked the lenses for EOS cameras concept!)



It takes courage to push things forward . . (Mo Mowlam)
User currently offlineBronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 810 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4737 times:

(I think it is a shame Canon starts making dedicated digital lenses unusable for 35mm SLRs. I liked the lenses for EOS cameras concept!)

Well, the lens would be a lot more expensive if it was not EF-S. By making it digital only, they only have to fill the smaller sensor of the digitial camera.



Jet City Aviation Photography
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

Not the Canon but ultra wide angle:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia



Vasco


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1058 posts, RR: 33
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4690 times:

I actually thisnk Canon has done the right thing with EF-S.
First the only people who really need a new wide angle are those with 20D's and now to a lesser extent 10D's as most have upgraded to the far superior camera the 20D.From a marketing point it also pushes people toward the newer body.
Canon already have nice wideangle lenses available for the EOS standard camera's so it really is only the digital market they needed to fill with a true wideangle lens.
This 10-22 costs half the price of a 16-35L and from my experience with that lens the 10-22 is superior.
If the 10-22 was made for the standard bodies not only would it have weighed 3 times what it does the front element would be bigger than the Sigma 12-24 and i'd weigh a huge bet its quality would have been inconsistent like the 16-35/2.8.
For digital owners the 10-22 gets you true wideangle with L quality shots for half to one third the price.
Works for me.



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 300D...or What's Better For The Price? posted Tue Dec 28 2004 11:38:25 by Andz
Canon 10D And The Canon Canon EF-S 10-22MM F/3.5-4 posted Sat Feb 25 2006 14:48:12 by Singel09
Canon EF-S 10-22mm - Any Experiences? posted Sun May 8 2005 20:34:41 by UA935
EF 10-22mm Lens Your Experience! posted Thu Oct 13 2005 01:30:16 by DRAIGONAIR
Exposing Correctly With Canon 10-22 posted Mon May 16 2005 07:38:27 by United737522
Canon EOS 20D For $ 785 In The US? posted Sat Mar 26 2005 09:12:34 by Paulianer
Canon 100-400L "polluting" The Cmos? posted Fri Aug 13 2004 18:23:15 by Fly-K
Error 99 At A Terrible Time / Canon 18-55mm EF - S posted Fri May 14 2004 17:18:40 by Maiznblu_757
Better Than Sensia But Cheaper Than Provia posted Sun Jan 25 2004 20:18:09 by Lugonza_2001
Can Airliner Photos Get Better Than This. . .? posted Wed Jan 21 2004 17:36:20 by DIA