Contemplationg 10-22 as next lens

[mr.photoguy]

Ok ! I was just searching images on pbase from the 10-22. I have to say having a 10mm wide side isn't bad. I am contemplating the purchase. but my god 798 dollars. I don't know. I have a good mind to wait for the price to drop some more, but I don't think that will be soon.

My Question is ..
Has anyone seen this lens for cheaper?

[DaveG]

Ok ! I was just searching images on pbase from the 10-22. I have to say having a 10mm wide side isn't bad. I am contemplating the purchase. but my god 798 dollars. I don't know. I have a good mind to wait for the price to drop some more, but I don't think that will be soon.

My Question is ..
Has anyone seen this lens for cheaper?

I doubt that it'll get much cheaper than that. I've had one since December and it's become my favorite lens, and that's with a 16-35 f2.8L and a 70-200 f2.8L in the same stable.

It's very sharp and about 60% of the weight of the 16-35 which is greatly resembles. If you are into wide angles and I am then there is no competion for this lens at all. The Brand X lenses are a little bit longer - 11 & 12 mm - and I doubt if the build quality is even close. There was even a test I read where the Brand X lens they had was just bad which suggest some quaility control issues if nothing else.

If there's a problem with this lens - and really any lens of this focal length - it's that you have to be careful with yaw, or at least I think that I do. Yaw is when there's not only tilting up and down, but when there's some sideways twist as well. Tilt the camera down a bit and have the right side of the camera closer to the subject than the left. That's yaw. I'm sure I do this with most hand held shots with all of my lenses but it's much more noticable with a lens this wide.

The lens seems well corrected for barrel distortion - within reason - since it IS a super side angle & any round things in the corners are going to look like footballs. I hate see a lens like this compared to a 24-70 and then have it announced that there's more barrel distortion in the 10-22. Yup there is. How could there be not? Don't even compare it to a 16-35 unless it's on a full frame camera. Then and under those conditions the 10-22 will compare and test favourably.

[gasrocks]

I paid about $800. for mine and it is worth it. I have seen some new ones on eBay for a lot less - and from people I would buy from.

[Toogy]

IT is the next lens I plan on buying, I tested one out in the store a few days ago and I was VERY impressed!

[Sicily1918]

I have it and I love it. Great lens -- even at 10mm (well, 16mm effectively) the sides are crisp and bright (although distorted).

The one thing I learned about wide-angle photography... forget the rule of thirds... your shots will come out looking really strange :)

[mr.photoguy]

Yeah I am really considering it .
I gave it a little bit of time for the images to show up on pbase, and after viewing a lot of the images I am pretty impressed. More so I do have a use for this wide angle, when I thought I didn't. I figure with the right composition my night images could be much more dramatic. hmm...

I will definetly look into it. I really wouldn't mind going wider than 18mm.
I have some money coming in, so I may make the dive, but I am not 100% sure yet.
my plan would entail
10-22/Tamron 24-75 f2.8 (already have zoom & macro)
(lol + bigger bag)

[baboymo]

Check out Dell.com at least once a week. I was able to get the 10-22 for $664 (not including tax). They frequently have 15% off Canon lenses w/ free shipping plus additional coupons you can find on the Internet.

The 10-22 is a great lens, especially at the "fisheyed" 10mm end.

[mr.photoguy]

hmm .. ok I will keep my eye on Dell ... 664 sounds way more acceptable to me than 800 bucks.


thanks for the info.

[pcasciola]

Got my order in at Dell about 2 weeks ago for $604, but there were a ton of people jumping on that one. Mine got backordered and then I canceled it. Now, that lens is no longer listed on Dell's website, and neither is the 17-85mm EF-S.

[mgash]

Tokina has a 12-24 for about 500.

[fatrat]

I doubt that it'll get much cheaper than that. I've had one since December and it's become my favorite lens, and that's with a 16-35 f2.8L and a 70-200 f2.8L in the same stable.

It's very sharp and about 60% of the weight of the 16-35 which is greatly resembles. If you are into wide angles and I am then there is no competion for this lens at all. The Brand X lenses are a little bit longer - 11 & 12 mm - and I doubt if the build quality is even close. There was even a test I read where the Brand X lens they had was just bad which suggest some quaility control issues if nothing else.

If there's a problem with this lens - and really any lens of this focal length - it's that you have to be careful with yaw, or at least I think that I do. Yaw is when there's not only tilting up and down, but when there's some sideways twist as well. Tilt the camera down a bit and have the right side of the camera closer to the subject than the left. That's yaw. I'm sure I do this with most hand held shots with all of my lenses but it's much more noticable with a lens this wide.

The lens seems well corrected for barrel distortion - within reason - since it IS a super side angle & any round things in the corners are going to look like footballs. I hate see a lens like this compared to a 24-70 and then have it announced that there's more barrel distortion in the 10-22. Yup there is. How could there be not? Don't even compare it to a 16-35 unless it's on a full frame camera. Then and under those conditions the 10-22 will compare and test favourably.

So is the image as good as the 16-35,
why do you say dont compare the two??
im tossing up weather to get the 10-22 or the 16-35 L??
In Aust the 16-35L is nearly triple the price so it would want to be a hell of a lot better to justify the extra $$$

[Tom W]

Bruce, I've not heard anything bad about the 10-22 mm lens. Every report I get is that it is an excellent performer. And its well built - almost as well as the 16-35 that it emulates on the 1.6 sensor.

Fatrat: Two different animals - the 16-35 is a full-frame lens, and performs very well on full-frame as well as 1.3X and 1.6X cameras. But it can't do 10 mm. the 10-22 is designed specifically for the 1.6X sensor, and is smaller and lighter than the 16-35 while offering similar optical quality. Its range is designed to take the 1.6X sensor into consideration and offers roughly the same field of view on a 1.6X camera as the 16-35 offers on a full-frame digital or film camera.

For the 20D, the 16-35 is a great performer and is a little faster in aperture at f/2.8, but it isn't as wide. Not by a long shot. What you pay for in the 16-35 is that extra stop of light, and that extra glass needed to be wide on a full-sized sensor.

If I had a 20D, I'd get the 10-22 for the wide stuff.

[DaveG]

So is the image as good as the 16-35,
why do you say dont compare the two??
im tossing up weather to get the 10-22 or the 16-35 L??
In Aust the 16-35L is nearly triple the price so it would want to be a hell of a lot better to justify the extra $$$


On a 20D the 10-22 is a super wide angle and the 16-35 is a moderate wide angle.That for starts. If you put the 16-35 on a 1DS Mark II you then could compare the two since they would have the same field of view, although there would be other, shall we say variables, in that comparison too.

In another sense comparing a 10-22 to a 16-35 is no more valid than comparing a 10-22 to a 300 f2.8. Each lens is trying to do something the other isn't. Compare a 10-22 with a Sigma or Tokina 12-24; or a 16-35 to a Canon 17-40 f4L. At least then you'd be comparing apples to apples, and oranges to oranges.

So why is the 16-35 so expensive? Well it is a full frame lens and someday - if I ever get a full frame DSLR - mine will go back to being a 16-35 and not be effectively a 26-56. It is a f2.8 and like most things photographic you pay for speed. And it is an L lens with their higher build quality.

[Hellashot]

I wouldn't buy a lens that expensive that cannot go on a full frame or a film SLR.

[Adam Hicks]

Why not Hellashot? I bought mine for $649 and can sell it on eBay tomorrow for $700. Meanwhile it's doing a great job taking great images for free.

Adam

[pcasciola]

Adam,

That was a great deal, but have you noticed Dell does not even have them listed on their website anymore? The first time I missed the deadline for the coupon, and the second time I had one ordered at $604, but it went backordered and they couldn't give me a firm ship date so I canceled. I'm still torn between the 10-22 vs a Sigma 12-24 because I'd like something I can use on a larger sensor camera, even though the Canon is a little better. If the Dell deal does arise again, I will NOT miss it a third time. ;)

[Adam Hicks]

I'm thinking that $604 run was so popular that they had to rethink their strategy... that or they were bacakordered to the point that they pulled the item from the site until they could get caught up. They still have enough other lenses online that I'd expect they put the 10-22 back before long.

THAT or the other major Canon resellers raised hell with Canon about Dell selling the lens for so cheap compared to the univerally accepted $799.

Adam

[pcasciola]

THAT or the other major Canon resellers raised hell with Canon about Dell selling the lens for so cheap compared to the univerally accepted $799.That's VERY possible. I hadn't thought of that. Might explain why the 17-85mm EF-S was also removed.

Anyway, here's the ultra wide zoom lineup as it stands now:

Sigma 12-24mm ($669) - Only one in this range that works on full frame sensors.
Canon 10-22mm ($799) - Mostly very positive reviews, EF-S 20D/300D/350D only.
Tokina 12-24mm ($599) - Only constant aperture lens in this range at f/4.
Tamron 11-18mm (about $650) - Not much info yet on this one. List price recently announced at $981 which should translate to about $650 at B&H.
Sigma 10-20mm (Price not yet announced).

All except the Sigma 12-24mm are designed for 1.5x sensor sized cameras.

Best "regular" prices I see on the Canon is $719 on ebay from Best Pro photo which I think are gray market, $739 from Cameta and $759 from Unique Photo.

[fatrat]

Do the think the D20 replacement will be able to use a 10-22?

[pcasciola]

Do the think the D20 replacement will be able to use a 10-22?Absolutely. I'm sure every 1.6x sensor camera Canon makes from here on out will be EF-S compatible.

[mr.photoguy]

That's VERY possible. I hadn't thought of that. Might explain why the 17-85mm EF-S was also removed.

Anyway, here's the ultra wide zoom lineup as it stands now:

Sigma 12-24mm ($669) - Only one in this range that works on full frame sensors.
Canon 10-22mm ($799) - Mostly very positive reviews, EF-S 20D/300D/350D only.
Tokina 12-24mm ($599) - Only constant aperture lens in this range at f/4.
Tamron 11-18mm (about $650) - Not much info yet on this one. List price recently announced at $981 which should translate to about $650 at B&H.
Sigma 10-20mm (Price not yet announced).

All except the Sigma 12-24mm are designed for 1.5x sensor sized cameras.

Best "regular" prices I see on the Canon is $719 on ebay from Best Pro photo which I think are gray market, $739 from Cameta and $759 from Unique Photo.

Thank you very much for the response .
I highly appreciate it.

I think with the prices listed it would be better for me to stick with the canon... especially considering the 10mm performance side of the equation.

[mr.photoguy]

I wouldn't buy a lens that expensive that cannot go on a full frame or a film SLR.
Well I paid 1300 dollars for my 20D .
I don't really see the issue of purchasing a lens like this because I would like to go wide on my 1.6x sensor. I don't even see myself buying a full frame for anytime soon to be honest. So that idea is out the window.

[Todd Jacobsen]

I wouldn't buy a lens that expensive that cannot go on a full frame or a film SLR.

You are assuming that Canon will not modify new film bodies to utilize this lens. With current bodies, there is a limitation. I do not see this continuing. Remember FD lenses?....

[pcasciola]

You are assuming that Canon will not modify new film bodies to utilize this lens. With current bodies, there is a limitation. I do not see this continuing. Remember FD lenses?....
The EF-S lenses do not cover a full frame, so even if Canon modifies film bodies to use them, you will have serious vignetting problems.

[Jack W.]

I was one of the lucky ones who got in on the Dell deal a few weeks ago. Ordered on a Thursday, had it the following Monday.
The 10-22 and the 17-85 are both gone from the Dell site now. I think it's because that, of all the lenses that Dell lists, the 17-85 and the 10-22 are the only ones that Dell had at the same "normal" selling price as everyone else (the rest are all priced noticably higher). So, when Dell had sales on them, along with the stackable coupons, the prices on those two were great, and they got swamped with orders. I ordered the 17-85 back in January using a sale/coupon deal. Took a month to get it, and there are people still waiting. I have a feeling that Dell pulled them so as not to create a bigger backlog than they already have. These two lenses are known to be in very short supply from time to time.
I held off for a while on the 10-22 because I wasn't sure how much use I would get out of it. But I got it for $640 total (Dell charges tax here in N.J.), so at that price I figured I'd grab it as I've read so many very positive things about it.
I've only had a chance to grab a few quick shots outside my house with it, but the results are super. Color, sharpness, contrast are all teriffic.
I'm also one of those 20D owners who feels that the 1.6 cameras will be around for a long time, so the EF-S "factor" had no bearing on my decision to buy either lens.
I wanted 'em, I bought 'em! :-)
Jack