Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4604 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.
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...
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4446 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.
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4417 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.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 4365 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.
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!
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4273 times:
I'd love to see some flight deck shots with this lens!
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...
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4262 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.
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4205 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...
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Dehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1051 posts, RR: 36 Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4142 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.