10-22 EF-s vs. 16-35 L?

[symes]

Please help again...

I am in the process of deciding between the two above...i had decided on the 16-35 over the 24-70 but the 10-22 seems to be such an excellent lens?

Anybody own both that could weigh in?

Anybody esle out there with some thoughts?

thanks...

[rg-tom]

the 16-35 is a far superior lense from what I've read both in terms of image quality and build, and also has the constant F2.8, but of course is 25.6 wide instead of 16mm wide (effectively of course) on the 300D, but you will not be able to upgrade to a 1 series camera if u get the 10-22.

[symes]

the 16-35 is a far superior lense from what I've read both in terms of image quality and build, and also has the constant F2.8, but of course is 25.6 wide instead of 16mm wide (effectively of course) on the 300D, but you will not be able to upgrade to a 1 series camera if u get the 10-22.

That becomes the dilemna then...Low light capability vs. Width...

I am not going to be upgrading to a series 1 camera unless I win the lottery or someone else on this forum wants to buy it for me...

Cheers

[Toogy]

Just get the 10-22!!
The low light isn't really a concern to me, the focal length is SO short that I can handhold at 1/15sec and get decent shots easily.
The 16-35 isn't really that wide on a 1.6x camera, and trust me, once you have the ability to go wide (10mm) you will wonder what you used to do without it. I take 90% of my shots with this lens at 10mm!
Here are a shot I took the other night at 10mm

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/image/43139065.jpg

Here is a whole gallery of images I have taken with my 10-22mm

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/old_train_station

[antaine]

Toogy, those are lovely shots (I specially like Another Era www.pbase.com/toogy/image/41742853) - did you use a filter for this one?

[Toogy]

I used the photo filter in Photoshop slightly, it was a very nice morning and the light was perfect for most of these shots and the photo filter really brought it out.

[symes]

That is a great series...WOW...

you almost have me convinced...any votes for the 16-35?

Cheers...

[ScottE]

The 16-35 is a great wide angle lens on a 35 mm or full frame digital camera. If you want the same width on an APS sized sensor the 10-22 is your only answer. You should base you decision on the angle of view you need for the pictures you want to take.

While the 16-35 is a great lens, there is very little if any discernable advantage over the 10-22 if shooting at apertures from f/8 to f/11. If you compared prints shot with the same focal distance and those apertures on the two lenses you would not be able to tell which lens took them. (Ok, if you used mirror lock up, a tripod, a cable release and examined the prints with a magnifying glass you might be able to see slightly more resolution.) If you use this lens for landscapes you are generally using an aperture in this range to get enough depth of field to include both foreground and background elements.

The large f/2.8 aperture and better sharpness of the 16-35 at large apertures is mostly only an advantage if you shoot at those apertures, but it does assist in focusing as well.

Pesonally, if I needed a wide angle lens for a 20D, I would get the 10-22 (I did). The next step up in a quality mid-range lens would then be the 24-70 L. That kind of leaves the 16-35 without a job.

Scott

[DaveG]

Please help again...

I am in the process of deciding between the two above...i had decided on the 16-35 over the 24-70 but the 10-22 seems to be such an excellent lens?

Anybody own both that could weigh in?

Anybody esle out there with some thoughts?

thanks...

I own both and although this is going to sound very "Duh" like they are two very different lenses. As a walking around photgraphing the commercial cocktail party goes the 16-35 is wonderful. Bright and I can't get wide enough to get into trouble with distorted faces. Optically it's superb and one day (sigh ...) it will go back to being a 16-35. Now my current super wide angle is the 10-22 and I don't think that I could live without both. It's as wide as I could imagine and it's great for a photojournalistic look.

I also have the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 so I've covered the focal length that the 16-35 fits into. In some ways the 16-35 is made redundent by the 10-22/24-85 combination, and I've pointed that out before. But taking a line out of Winston Churchill's philosophy ("I'd rather be right than consistent.") I've changed my mind. It has to do with how fequently I'd have to switch lenses when I pass between 22 and 24mm. I hadn't realized how often this happens and what a pain it would be to not have that smooth zoom focal length between 16-35. Although every lenses' focal length ends somewhere, I'd be very frustrated if I lost that 16-35 zoom range.

In any case I'd say -without doubt - that these two lenses the 16-35 & the 10-22 compliment and don't exclude each other, and the only decision is which one to buy FIRST.

[symes]

This decision is getting much more difficult...

[the.digital.guy]

The more and more reviews that keep coming out are picking the 10-22 as the clear winner.
They say it should have an"L" and "Red Stripe" on the lens.
...then again;it is only for the Rebel and 20D..But if thats what you are using;Go for it!!!

[SeanH]

Without a doubt the 10-22, I traded the 17-40L for the 10-22. Here's photo's I shot within a hour of owning the lens.

http://www.pbase.com/blue622/photos

[OceanView]

Just get the 10-22!!
The low light isn't really a concern to me, the focal length is SO short that I can handhold at 1/15sec and get decent shots easily.
The 16-35 isn't really that wide on a 1.6x camera, and trust me, once you have the ability to go wide (10mm) you will wonder what you used to do without it. I take 90% of my shots with this lens at 10mm!
Here are a shot I took the other night at 10mm

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/image/43139065.jpg

Here is a whole gallery of images I have taken with my 10-22mm

http://www.pbase.com/toogy/old_train_station


Photo looks great.

[Sydor25]

I love the 10-22mm lens. I was looking for a replacement for the "kit" lens for wide-angle shots and was looking at the 17-40 vs 10-22. The 10-22mm just made more sense on a 20D camera. I already had the 28-135 IS lens to cover the rest of the focal lenth of the kit lens.

[symes]

Looks like lens...it is just the low light capabilities that scare me off...

[whjacksonfan]

I have a 20D and a collection of L lenses. I was not going to purchase the EF-S because it will not work on my next camera which be whatever Canon comes up with (full frame )in 2007. I picked up a used 10-22 at a resonable cost and it has been just great. The lens lets you get real close without distorting the perspective to an extreme I also have the 20mm2,8 which has been great for film ,however at 32mm you have to back up too much to get back to the 20 mm view. If you read Popphoto's test they claim the best barrel and pincushion ever tested on a Canon lens for the 10-22.
The cost of the 16-35 for a 20D is a waste because you are into 25.6mm on the low end. If you are using a full frame then 16-35 is the obvious choice. The 10-22 is still a great lens for its intended purpose. Unfortunately it won't even work on my 10D.

[StealthLude]

for a 20D? 10-22 no question. If you want wide, its the lens for you. The lens can hold its own in low light, trust me.

If you really want to see this lens perform, stick it on a tripod and take some landscape with it. Ive shot some long exposure shots (3-4 seconds exposure) and people go gaga over the results.

[JimAskew]

Hi,

I have no experience with the 16-35 L, but I do own the 10-22MM EF-S. This is an outstanding lens and I use it as my "walk around" lens most of the time.

It is a great performer in all light conditions. Here is a shot I made at the Air & Space Annex at Dulles Airport last Sunday. I have more posted in the TRANSPORTATION section of this forum under the thread titled "10-22MM at EF-S at the Air & Space Annex."

This picture was taken with the following settings: 1/60th, f/5.6, 10MM, ISO 1600. I also used my SpeedLite 420 EX as the exhibit hall is quite dark.

Enjoy :-)

[Lord_Malone]

If you plan to ever go FF, the 16-35L is a wise investment.;)

[InfamousDX]

Any samples at 22mm??

[rklepper]

I had struggled with the decision as at some point I may go FF. However, even if I never use the 10-22 again, if I do go FF it has been worth the cost to get the shots that I have and have the fun with it I have. I really try to avoid purchasing anything based on something that may happen, but instead focus on what IS happening. This will keep you from doing anything.

[symes]

Wow...since asking this question originally I had purchased the 10-22, then purchased a 1D and sold the lens on this forum...

having said that...My very best Landscape pictures were take with the 10-22. The versatility etc...is what I love...Here is an example: