Why EF-S 10-22mm is the still the best ultra wide angle lens for 1.6x DSLR

[USM]

Look at the perspective of the EF-S 10-22mm that can offer you. As long as you are using the 1.6x crop DSLR, this is the lens to go.

Only if you are using FF, then EF-16-35mm or EF 17-40mm will be a good choice.



No sharpening, contrast, saturation done.

[Russ]

Agree - I should have gotten mine a year ago but I was put off by the price. Now no regrets man - very sharp, contrasty, good colours, like an L lens really.

[lewong]

hi, I understand the 10-22 is f3.5-f4.5 and hence if I am looking for a wide angle lens to take indoor pics with low light condition (for non-sports), would that be recommended? or should I still consider getting a f1.4 - f2.8 (even for 3rd party brands like those offered by Sigma and Temron)? Tks

[honda]

Is the distortion at 10mm too much? It looks like the building are tilting to the centre.http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com

[jsbn]

Those buildings at the side seem tilted oso. Guess barrel distortion at 10mm even on a 1.6x body is quite serious.

An alternative choice (since if u're shooting landscape, u've got all the time in the world), how abt a panoramic stitch at 28mm on the EF-S 18-55mm?

[dEthANGeL]

Maybe i should add another equation in .... how about the sigma one

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by honda Is the distortion at 10mm too much? It looks like the building are tilting to the centre.http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com

its inherent (to some degree) in all WA lenses.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by honda Is the distortion at 10mm too much? It looks like the building are tilting to the centre.http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com

The tilt is a physical property. Any ultrawides shot at the same location and aimed at the same angle would have the same tilting effect. The good thing abt the EF-S 10-22 is that inherent distortion (due to lens design) is kept to a minimum, so it doesn't contribute much more distortion.

[mpenza]

Originally Posted by lewong hi, I understand the 10-22 is f3.5-f4.5 and hence if I am looking for a wide angle lens to take indoor pics with low light condition (for non-sports), would that be recommended? or should I still consider getting a f1.4 - f2.8 (even for 3rd party brands like those offered by Sigma and Temron)? Tks

The EF-S 10-22 is the fastest ultra-wide zoom available now. You don't get any faster lens for Canon and Nikon bodies (only Olympus has faster ultra-wide zooms).

[ibs]

Originally Posted by dEthANGeL Maybe i should add another equation in .... how about the sigma one

I've been using the sigma 10-20 for a couple of mths, so much so that most of my photos are extreme wide-angle nowadays. I've tried all the wide angle lenses except canon 10-22. IMHO the sigma has the best 'distortion control' among the lot I've tested. I've not tried canon, so can't say anything about it.

As mentioned by the rest, all wide angle lenses have inherent distortion. The trick is not to tilt them up or down too much. I even have a shoe-mount spirit level at all times when I'm shooting landscapes on a tripod.

[Denosha]

I've had the 10-22 for quite some time already and it's really like an L lens in disguise. Yes the perspective distortion is quite serious but that's a problem all wide angle lenses will share. Barrel distortion however, is kept surprisingly low. In fact, it's not worse (or possibly better) than my 17-40L at 17mm. It was on my camera most of the time during my trip to Melaka over the long weekend - http://www.sgl.per.sg/users/denosha/gallery/melaka06

[StreetShooter]

Originally Posted by ibs I've been using the sigma 10-20 for a couple of mths, so much so that most of my photos are extreme wide-angle nowadays. I've tried all the wide angle lenses except canon 10-22. IMHO the sigma has the best 'distortion control' among the lot I've tested. I've not tried canon, so can't say anything about it. As mentioned by the rest, all wide angle lenses have inherent distortion. The trick is not to tilt them up or down too much. I even have a shoe-mount spirit level at all times when I'm shooting landscapes on a tripod.

I compared both the Sigma and the Canon at the shop. Perhaps the Sigma I tried was a bad copy, but the Canon was way sharper. I'm a big Sigma fan, but this time I got the Canon.

It's a very fun lens, but you need to use it carefully. First point has already been mentioned - try to keep it level for landscapes to avoid converging verticals. Second point is to avoid having faces near the edges, as they will be stretched quite badly. Keep your humans near the centre, and you'll still get your wide-angle effect without disturbing distortion. Building lines stretch comfortably without causing psychological discomfort.

[lewong]

Originally Posted by mpenza The EF-S 10-22 is the fastest ultra-wide zoom available now. You don't get any faster lens for Canon and Nikon bodies (only Olympus has faster ultra-wide zooms).

Any idea how the EF-S 10-22 will perform under low light condition?

[dfstan]

when i took pics on my 10-22mm, there's CA appearing at four corners of the pic. any comments? I think it's at 10mm when CA is more obvious.

[redstorm]

The Tokina 12-24mm, which is highly acclaimed and built like a tank, should be another worthy contender. Actually, besides the price, there isn't much to choose between the Canon, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron UWA. The difference in image quality among these lenses is very subtle.

[lin san]

Originally Posted by USM Look at the perspective of the EF-S 10-22mm that can offer you. As long as you are using the 1.6x crop DSLR, this is the lens to go. Only if you are using FF, then EF-16-35mm or EF 17-40mm will be a good choice. No sharpening, contrast, saturation done.

Here is one comparison between Canon, Nikon, Tokina, Sigma and Tamron. It will further confirm your suggestion:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...comparison.htm

[JediForce4ever]

Originally Posted by mpenza The tilt is a physical property. Any ultrawides shot at the same location and aimed at the same angle would have the same tilting effect. The good thing abt the EF-S 10-22 is that inherent distortion (due to lens design) is kept to a minimum, so it doesn't contribute much more distortion.

agree...its the perspective that gives the building the tilt.

[Silver]

i went with one of the members here as she wanted to purchase the Tokina 12-24mm.
as i was so tempted by the EFS 10-20mm beforehand but with no intention to buy anything that day,
i decided to compare the two.
kaypoh kapoh abit mah..
guess wat? i ended carrying it out in my arms after that.
no regrets IMO and not to say the Tonkina one is inferior or watsoever,
itz juz cuz i was so impressed with the handling and the angle it gives me..
not to mention the hole in my pocket.

[egg]

Originally Posted by Silver i went with one of the members here as she wanted to purchase the Tokina 12-24mm. as i was so tempted by the EFS 10-20mm beforehand but with no intention to buy anything that day, i decided to compare the two. kaypoh kapoh abit mah.. guess wat? i ended carrying it out in my arms after that. no regrets IMO and not to say the Tonkina one is inferior or watsoever, itz juz cuz i was so impressed with the handling and the angle it gives me.. not to mention the hole in my pocket.

Bro - can share how much you paid for it ? Tks

[trlnlty]

ive used a tokina 12-24 and couldnt have been happier with it. Have not used the 10-22 but i was VERY pleased with the tokina.

now i upgraded to a 16-35 because i moved on to a 1D and i think the tokina compared to the 16-35 has similiar picture quality.