10 to 22 MM Lens Test

[phili1]

I Just got the 10 to 22 MM lens and did a perliminery test. It is not con clusive because of the conditions I shot them under. I will do a better test but thought you might want to see these.

I use or will use this lens for my Real Estate photos so I did a room and house test.

First is my room upstairs which is 16 x 20, I used 10mm to see just what it will do and it almost got all four corners. If you look at the table and right ceiling wall area distortion is evident. At 14 mm it goes away, looks more natural. Picture is sharp, not as good as my Tamron 28 to 75 but acceptable.

In the house pictures there are three shots, 1 at 10mm 1 at 17mm and 1 at 22mm. They were shot at 1/80th of a sec. and what I see is you have to be careful of Camera movement even though this lens is light it is sensative to movement. The 10 mm shows some distortaion with architectural line but I think for landscaapes this won't be a problem. It improves at 17 mm and at 22 mm it is like a normal lens.

The last shot I put three Peanut butter cups to test the sharpness and other then light reflection on the shinny surface it is a very sharp lens.

I will try to do some landscape test with a tripod at these shutter speeds and post them as soom as I have them.

I opted to get this lens over over Sigmas because it would take front filters and I got a Hoya thin which does not let you put the Canon lens cap on. the one from Hoya is a slip on and slips off to easy.

One other thing it does not come with a lens hood thats an extra item.

It is made very well and at the moment I can not say if it is worth the money you pay for it but we only have two choices.

Anyway here is the link.

http://www.pbase.com/phili1/10_to_22_mm_lens_test

[cdhender]

Thanks for the post. Seems like it's a solid lense. Let us know how the further tests go :D

[HJMinard]

One thing I've been wondering ... does this lens have a metal or a plastic barrel?

[phili1]

It is hard to tell. It has a different sound then my Tamron which is plastic and looks different. The book does not give material.

[phili1]

I did another test on a tripod and my results were very poor. At F22 I took a picture of the house accros the street. When I brought them into Adobe and did a zoom normally I can bring it to almost pixel and get sharp results but in this case after 2 zoom the pictures where totally out of focus. At F22 with ssuch a short focus the picture should be sharp as a tack.

I am going to return it today and get the Sigma.

[roanjohn]

YIKES!!!

I guess EF-S lenses are no good!!! even with a much more expensive price tag.

Ro1

[EXA1a]

I did another test on a tripod and my results were very poor. At F22 I took a picture of the house accros the street. When I brought them into Adobe and did a zoom normally I can bring it to almost pixel and get sharp results but in this case after 2 zoom the pictures where totally out of focus. At F22 with ssuch a short focus the picture should be sharp as a tack.

I am going to return it today and get the Sigma.
Sounds like user error.

[drisley]

Actually, it's recommended by Canon, and others, not to use an aperture smaller than F16 on ultra wide angle lenses. Such small apertures on these lenses cause diffraction artifacts that make the image look soft.
This may or may not be the problem here, but I thought it was worth a mention.

[phili1]

Well it might sound like user error but I have 30+ years of photography and I can tell you that it is not.

As far as F 16 I used F22 on a tripod to make sure there was no user erroer.

Drisley that may well be but my understanding is that the smaller the f stop the more in focus and when I got unsharp pics at lower F stops I went to F22.

First off if you look at the picture the distortion was to one side not both which to me means a lens problem.

Now I conducted the same test with the Tamron 17 to 35 lens and no problems sharp images.

Now with a wide angle lens the focus distance is minimal. so if some thing is 10 feet everything from 5 feet to infinity should be sharp and it just was not.

So you tell me where can the error be.

[JZaun]

phili1
Thanks for the test. I would love to see a full size pic but I am sure the corners will be soft. This is what is being observed by others on other forums. It is more appearent if the pic is blown up and you look at a corner. For normal prints that lens may be just fine for such a wide lens. I was thinking about the 10-22 but I have ordered a 17-85mm for a try instead after seeing others test pics. .

Jerry

[pcasciola]

Wow, you gave up on that 10-22mm awfully quick!!! I agree with Drisley on this one. I've read in a bunch of different places that ultra wide angle lenses typically have problems stopped way down, for exactly the same reason, diffraction artifcats. Plus, 17-35mm is nowhere near 10-22mm, so that's not a fair comparison either. Even with 30+ year experience you can't possibly expect to perfect using that lens in 2 days. How many of those 30+ years experience were with a 10mm lens on an APS-C sensor camera?

I also wouldn't be surprised if you see the same problems with the Sigma at 12mm, but don't forget the Sigma errs in favor of sharpness at the expense of contrast, so keep that in mind when you test the Sigma @12mm stopped all the way down to f22. You mentioned in a previous post you would be doing interior photography, where contrast is more important than sharpness anyway.

Here's a snippet from this "Mastering wide-angle" article I had in my favorites from when I started researching the Sigma 12-24mm:

"Use a tripod whenever possible: this means you'll be able to stop down to f/11 or below. Often it's better to go all the way to f/22, despite the slight diffraction-caused softening this causes."

Here's the link:

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/m_Mastering_Wide-Angle/m_Mastering_Wide-Angle.html

I'm very curious to see the Sigma 12-24mm and Canon 10-22mm side by side, so thanks in advance for doing this comparison for us. Hopefully you can take all the same shots so we can compare them too and draw our own conclusions.

[phili1]

I just bought the Tamrom 17 to 35mm lens to replace it. Now so you know there are three people om Fred Mirander who give it a good report buty I found the oposit of there reviews.

Good Luck.

[commando]

Nice shots that you posted above Phil, I didn't really see any point of having a wide angle lens myself until I saw them. I don't really need one though... must... resist... buying.... new.... lens ;)

[pcasciola]

I just bought the Tamrom 17 to 35mm lens to replace it. Now so you know there are three people om Fred Mirander who give it a good report buty I found the oposit of there reviews.

Good Luck.

I'm not sure who Fred Mirander is, but there are 4 very positive reviews of the 10-22 on Fred Miranda's site. :lol:

I thought the five pictures you posted looked fine for a first try, especially the 10mm where you fit the entire neighbor's house in with yours, and the one of the room with the couch. Try those two with the Tamron and see how much you fit. If the 17mm is wide enough to meet your needs then great, you're better of with a less-wide lens, but you have to appreciate how much more the 10-22mm is doing lens-wise. To be able to bend that much more light with that little distortion is just amazing to me.

The 10-22 is a very specialized lens for a very special application, and in my opinion should not be compared to a 17-35 or 17-85 which are not ultra wide on a 1.6x crop camera, but just standard wide like a 28-55mm or 28-135mm would be on a full frame camera.

[ron chappel]

There's a full size example pic linked from the EOS forum on photo,net

I must say it looks VERY good but for the sudden softness in the (extreme) corners wide open.
Someone mentioned it so the owner checked it while refocussed on the corner.It was better but still there.He said at f5.6 it had pretty much gone.

Phili1,i hope yopu don't give up immediately.Perhaps try another example?

[Aylwin]

I currently have the 17-40L but am considering getting the 10-22. After awhile, 17mm just isn't wide enough. I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison with the Sigma 12-24 which, in my opinion, is the only real competitor the 10-22 has.

[phili1]

I gave it another chance and like I said I can live with the 10mm distortion but when I reviewed the pictures the sharpness just was not there at 17mm and 22mm. I had about three people tell me bad lens get rid of it, so I did.

Anyway the 17mm gives me what I need for room pictures, and when I evaluate the pictures it is sharper at 17mm then the Canon was, and at 22 mm the same.

The key was the licence plate on my cars were blurry with the Canon and much sharper with the Tamron.

Hey like I said there are several opinions that disagree with me. It could have been a bad lens or my taste.

[ron chappel]

I too think it was a bad lens-i'm just worried you are giving up on that model when another example of the lens may be brilliant.
But then again maybe i'm reading more into the situation than i should-
You are obviously very happy with the tamron :)

[phili1]

Phil C. I did more test to be sure and like I said I can accept the 10mm problem but the pictures were very soft (Unsharp at 17mm & 22 Mm)

My pictures with the Tamron are sharper at 17mm up through 20mm.

My comparison is the licence plate of the Volvo, when I magnify the Canon it is a blur and when I magnify the Tamron it is sharp.

I was not trying to be unfair and my experience with 10mm is nil and I know that you can get a fish eye effect but that effect happens at all corners identical but with this lens and my test shot it is prodomonient on the right side.

I tried to buy the Sigma but they did not have any stock and when I tried the Tamron it gave me what I wanted and was able to get for the same money a Tamrac computer back pack, a bogen mononpod with a special base, a 512 San disk ultra card, a media holder and a filter holder as well as a Rocket blower.

If you lookm at one of my posts I said that ther were other people who thought it was a good lens.

I guess the people on one of my web sites instigated me into returning it, they said the pictures were unsharp.

Hey give it a try.

Oh by the way my reference to 30+ years was in response to a user error comment, I am very carefull in not making rash decissions, I find that in nine out of ten case it is a user mistake so I take that out of the equation and did with this. My lens was unsharp and I was challanged at the Camera store and proved to them that it indeed was less sharp then the Tamron.

Sorry if everybody is upset but I thought it prudent to give my opinion for what it is worth. Hey maybe nothing but it is mine.

[pcasciola]

Nah, I don't think anyone is upset. I definitely appreciate you posting your feedback. I just think if you are looking for f/22 performance at 17mm and up, the 10-22mm should not even have been a consideration for you.

I would totally expect the 17-22mm performance to be better on the Tamron, regardless of the higher cost of the Canon 10-22mm, because the elements that allow the Canon to go all the way out to 10mm makes it a lot more prone to distortion and diffraction issues.

My problem is I need something a lot wider than 17mm, so my only real choices aside from the 14mm and 15mm primes are the 10-22mm Canon, the 12-24mm Sigma and the upcoming Tamron 11-18mm.

Thanks again for sharing. It's all this good feedback that makes this board so great.

[phili1]

You can find both lenses reviewed on this site. I have seen pictures from the Sigma but I am not sure as to weither its at 12mm. If they had the Sigma in stock I would have gone that route but they told me I would have to special order and no returns on special order. the big reaosn I went with the Canon over the sigma was no front filter, hoe do you protect it ?. Hey I now have 2 Tamrons and I am very happy with them, so the 11mm might be a good lens. The guy was telling me that he is getting raves on the new 200 to 500 DI lens.

Why don't you try the Canon, maybe it was just my lens.

Anyway go to this site and you can see the reviwe for both the Sigma and Canon other then mine.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=184&sort=7&thecat=29

[Rayz]

This is indeed disturbing. Canon do not seem to have a good reputation for producing high quality wide angles in general. Owners of the 1Ds are sometimes so frustrated at this, they resort to using Zeiss wide angle lenses via an adapter and forgo all the automated functions.

One has to accept that all lenses will show some degradation of image quality in the corners. I bet the Tamron 17-35 is no exception. However, this degradation is cropped out with 'less than full frame' DSLRs. Any lens designed for full frame 35mm is effectively upgraded when used with a crop-factor DSLR.

Designing a lens specifically for the smaller format, as Canon have done with the 10-22, opens up the possibility of creating a sharper lens, just as most 35mm lenses are sharper than MF lenses, but with the inevitable fall-off in edge and corner performance.

To maintain corner and edge performance on a par with centre performance, unavoidably involves an over all reduction in sharpness.

By the way, does anyone recall that very long thread started by Mike Davis, "D60's pixels are too small to stop down below F11"? The 20D's pixels are even smaller. Not that I reckon that makes any difference :D , however I've never got any sharp results at f22 with any lens on 35mm or smaller.

[phili1]

Tamrons 17-35 is super at 17mm, no distortion as I got with the 10mm on Canons. Canons 17 mm had no distortion but for me oit was no sharp enough, Now that said some peope with the 10-20 are getting good results, so it might be specific lenses.