10-22 the secret 'L' lens

[peatoire]

Just read that the 10-22 uses L glass and Canon does not want to give the L moniker to any lens that isn't full-frame, so the 10-22 is labelled an EF-s series lens, but optically, Canon considers it L-quality.
It wasn't an official site so can't confirm but it might explian it's weighty price. After seeing the recent threads on this lens I think I'm going to bite the bullet & get one instead of a 50 1.4. It looks like a real gem.

[Master-9]

I thought that the 10-22 was a EF-s lens?

[Master-9]

Do you need a wide angled lens?

[peatoire]

It is, the short back focus being the reason it's not labelled with an L, apparently.

[peatoire]

I sometimes think that the 17-40 isn't wide enough with the 1.6 x. I think this lens would give the shots more drama.

[peatoire]

I thought that the 10-22 was a EF-s lens?
I see what you mean, it should read EF-s (now edited)

[condyk]

I sometimes think that the 17-40 isn't wide enough with the 1.6 x. I think this lens would give the shots more drama.

Sure ... but you get a bit tired of it after a while. At least I did when I had a 12-24 Tokina. Very fine lens, but I mainly used it at around 18-24mm. Same with my current 15-35mm, which is actually a very decent walkaround range, same as the 17-40mm, but I rarely use 15mm. Each to their own tho'. Hard to beat the 17-40mm L you have as an all rounder. I've nearly bought one a few times now.

[peatoire]

Sure ... but you get a bit tired of it after a while. At least I did when I had a 12-24 Tokina. Very fine lens, but I mainly used it at around 18-24mm. Same with my current 15-35mm, which is actually a very decent walkaround range, same as the 17-40mm, but I rarely use 15mm. Each to their own tho'. Hard to beat the 17-40mm L you have as an all rounder. I've nearly bought one a few times now.
That's food for thought condyk. I'm sometimes like a kid in a sweetie shop when scrolling through these pages. I sometimes have to tell myself 'stop buying equipment and get out and take some more pictures' :-)

[brivett]

There is soooo much more to an L Lens that the L Glass....

Comparing the 10-22mm efs and the 16-35 2.8 L (I have both)

General build quality
Design and integration with range i.e. location of focus and zoom rings
Size and usability of focus ring
Quality of fitment to the lens hood (very poor on the 10-22)

Agreed... the glass is exceptional... but the rest is just very good.

Putting a Ferrari engine in an Audi doesn't make it a Ferrari...

[Master-9]

Putting a Ferrari engine in an Audi doesn't make it a Ferrari...

But it sure makes it cheaper:D

[Tom_D]

There are many threads discussing the EF-S 10-22 lens and comparing it to other wide angle prime and zoom lenses.

The major complaint I have noticed about this lens is the price and that it is EF-S. At the same time I don't think many folks are purchasing it and then being disappointed.

I purchased it for a very specific purpose (documenting mechanical spaces) and it has served me well but have been very pleased using it for landscape work as well. I keep it in mt day bag and put it on the camera frequently.

As mentioned in another thread, the on-board flash will not work well at the widest zoom (10~12mm) as the lens itself casts a shadow. From that standpoint this lens cost me a lot more as I purchased the 580EX flash right after. :)

[homerdog]

Putting a Ferrari engine in an Audi doesn't make it a Ferrari...

Maybe not, but as Lamborghinis have lots of Audi parts, are they still Lamborghinis? ;)

[brivett]

Very true... you got me there !

Especially the new cheapo lambo....

It's too reliable to be a real Lambo

10/10

[TimSewell]

Look at the Sigma 10-20. Virtually interchangeable optically (see multitude of reviews) but better build quality and considerably cheaper.

[steved110]

I just recently checked out the 10-22 and the 17-40L - I went to the store and put each one on my camera and checked out the view and the handling/ feel etc. I went for the 17-40L - the 10-22 was a little too extreme for my tastes, i felt that I would struggle to use it well enough and often enough to justify the price.
But the 17-40 L was a revelation - just a little more in cost, but easily three times the build quality, and the zoom equates to 26-56mm approx which fits my preferred zoom range very well. And it will fit my film eos - important as I have not abandoned film 100% ( yet, the hold is simply emotional...)
so I felt it was much better value.
So far i am 100% delighted with the 17-40L and cannot recommend it enough.

[BugEyes]

I borrowed one from a friend over a weekend. Ended up costly as I had to get me one after trying it out. I have not regretted that for a moment and wouldn't want to be without it.

[F1_Fan]

But the 17-40 L was a revelation - just a little more in cost, but easily three times the build quality, and the zoom equates to 26-56mm approx which fits my preferred zoom range very well. And it will fit my film eos - important as I have not abandoned film 100% ( yet, the hold is simply emotional...)
so I felt it was much better value.
So far i am 100% delighted with the 17-40L and cannot recommend it enough.

Same here. It's a nice range on my 1.6x Rebel and stunning on the EOS film body. 17mm is great for the slides I shoot.

[lancea]

The 17-40 isn't "better" than the 10-22 - it's a different lens for a different purpose. But I can understand why you'd get the 17-40 if you wanted a solid pro lens for everyday use.

The 10-22 is great for so many things - landscape, buildings inside and out. It's just not possible to take some shots without a true wide-angle. Go for it peatoire!

[rklepper]

I bought the 10-22 as I wanted wider than the 17-40. It is great for its intended purpose. I can think of some things I would change in it if I could, but I can't.

[Mat Fitzsimmons]

The 17-40 isn't "better" than the 10-22 - it's a different lens for a different purpose.

Very true. I have both (I had the 17-40 then bought the 10-22) and wouldn't give up either. They're both great lenses, but in reality I only use the 10-22 when the 17-40 isn't wide enough. The 17-40 just about lives on my camera.