How sharp is 10-22mm EFs?

[gerolamo]

So I finally bought the 10-22 and I have to say that the wide angle is amazing on this lens.
I am mainly using it for buildings (landscapes too in the future), and I only have one thing that worries me.

It's not as sharp as my 28-135 IS.

I compared them throughout the zoom ranges and apertures.
Before someone mentions that you can't really compare 10mm with 28mm, I did this by increasing the distance with the zoom, so the size ot the picture is basically the same.

While at 22mm it's slightly better than 28-135 at 28mm, if I compare it at 10mm, it is slightly less sharp than the other lens. (Same thing on all apertures)

This worries me a bit, since I keep on seeing people bashing 28-135mm IS for softness.
I'll post some samples later, since I'm at work now.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this, or some tests of your own?

P.S.
I actually compared this lens with 17-40L in the store, and if anything, the 10-22 looked sharper on the equal zoom ranges. I couldn't compare it at 10mm though :(

[Jon]

The two have nothing in common. As you noted, you couldn't compare the 10-22 at 10 with the 17-40. Why would you expect that trying to compare it to the 28-135 would be any more possible when there's zero overlap?

[R32Bum]

I have had zero problems with sharpness on this lens. At 10mm wide open it get a little fuzzy around the edges, but that is to be expected. I have pulled very sharp images with this lens


<-----Its on my camera right there

[gerolamo]

This is the way I compare the two:

I take a picture of a ruler at 10mm.

I change the lens, take a step back, then take a picture of the same ruler at 28mm.

I make sure I frame the exact same thing, each time, so the test area, the center of the picture is exactly the same size.

I realize this is not scientific, but there's really no other way to check sharpness at 10mm since it's the only lens with this width.B)

[R32Bum]

I realize this is not scientific, but there's really no other way to check sharpness at 10mm since it's the only lens with this width.B)

in other words there is no compairison to this lens, so nothing compares to the cannon 10-22mm EFs lens would be a correct statement

[Jon]

Most lens standards for sharpness, contrast, etc. vary with the focal length.

[kawter2]

I adhere by a rule that if i want sharp good keepers, i ONLY shoot this lens at 3.5 or between 5.6-8.0

Here is somehthing from another thread

Luminous Landscape says that between f5.6 and f8 is by far the optimum. I try to hit between those numbers or go wide open

here is the chart again if anyone cares (lower #'s - better sharpness)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-25/blur-table.jpg



BTW btw (did you see this? http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68640 I upgraded mine to an "L" lens lol)


entire thread can be seen here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68570&highlight=10-22

[ed2day]

Even though you are framing the pictures the same, they are not the same picture. The perspective is different. There's no way I know of to do a direct comparison other than at the same focal length. Also the longer focal lengths always tend to look sharper than wide angles. And my 28-135 is as sharp as any lens I own when stopped down.

[gerolamo]

Thank you all for your replies.

I redid the test just for fun, and it's very little difference between the two lenses.

You are right, there is little reason to do such a test, besides my peace of mind that I actually got a good lens.

I'll just have to resign myself to the fact that I actually have a very sharp 28-135mm, and keep on shooting :)

[scr7b]

I don't own this lens, but the MTF from the Canon website suggests it's as sharp as the wide L glass. Of course the MTF is not as good an indicator as a photo!!

It's on my wish list... Please don't spoil it for me!! ;)

[the.digital.guy]

Of all the Latest reviews;they pick the 10-22 over the 17-40 L for quality and sharpness.
They say the 10-22 should have an "L'" on it!!!!!!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

It's "L-inside" ;)

[picture-this]

I'm very happy with this lens. At that price it should really come with the hood included though.

[Adam Hicks]

The 10-22 rocks. At 10mm it can be a little soft, but look at what you're asking it to do! :) At 22mm it's a very, very sharp lens. Especially stopped down a bit.

Adam

[the.digital.guy]

The 10-22 rocks. At 10mm it can be a little soft, but look at what you're asking it to do! :) At 22mm it's a very, very sharp lens. Especially stopped down a bit.

Adam

I have'nt seen that in any reviews(At 10mm it can be a little soft).
I see you have that lens.
Please let me know where you got that info?Have you experience this?
I have freiends that have this lens and have not had "the soft" feeling.
Thanks!
(Have the 10-22 ordered)

[Binley Woods]

extend your order to include the lens hood, they're like gold dust. Mine has been on order for weeks and there are back orders everywhere I go in the UK.

[ScottE]

I have both the 10-22 and 17-40 and in the overlapping 17 to 22 portion of the zoom range there is no significant difference in quality.

As for a lens hood, the one from the 17-40 fits just fine. Still, it is kind of cheap of Canon not to supply a hood with a lens of this quality and expense.

Scott