EF-S 10-22mm

I bought my 10-22 used and loved it. It is sharp, and a blast to use. Sadly I don't use it anymore (moved to a 5D). Get i, you won't regret it.

Islandhitman wrote in post #14739501
The current lenses I have are:
EF-S 18-135mm Kit Lens
EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II

The 18-135mm is a decent lens but like to have something wider, I think the 10-22mm would be a great lens for Landscape, architecture, & indoors as well which is exactly what I'm looking for, I was just wondering about the performance of the 10-22 and if anyone had any other suggestions as a alternative to the 10-22mm as it isn't the cheap $$ wise but I don't mind paying the $$ if the performance is good and better than the alternative. As for a walk around lens I find the 18-135 works out pretty well.

I agree with you completely. As my 18-135 is tack sharp and reasonably quick to focus. The 10-22 fills the wide angle nicely. With the 70-300 working the other end of the spectrum. All three of these lenses have turned out to be quite sharp and good values for the money.

Mike

Get it! Looked at Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma at Dury's in Nashville. Bought the Canon...no regrets.

I loved it on my T1i. Was great for many landscape shots and house events like birthday parties and stuff where the rooms are small and you don't really have space to back up. The distortion at the Ultra Wide end can be a very fun thing to play with as well. It is very sharp and has decent flare control. I would definitely recommend it to anyone using a crop camera.

I only sold mine so I could fund a 17-40L for my 5D3.

I have the Canon 10-22 and use it a lot on my 60d for landscape photos. I have been very happy with it.

One thing to keep in mind if you are shooting outdoors is resistance to flare is more important than with longer focal length lenses. Lenses in this focal range are so wide that it is harder to keep the sun away from the edge of the frame, if not in the frame. While Canon makes a hood for this lens, it is basically worthless. The Canon 10-22 has good flare resistance. That does not mean you don't get flare, but it is better controlled then most of the alternatives.

Other lens you might consider are:

Sigma 8-16 - 2mm wider may not sound like much, but it is a lot wider. This lens is about 2/3 f-stop slower than the Canon. Most reviews I've seen people are pretty happy with it. It is suppose to do ok with handling flare.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 - This is the lens of choice if you want to shoot dark old church interiors and similar subjects, because it is f/2.8. This lens has the worst flare problem of the UWs, so it is more challenging to use outdoors.

Sigma 10-20m f/3.5 - This is a constant f-stop lens which can be useful for video and it is a little cheaper than the Canon. It is pretty good at handling flare.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 - This lens is less expensive than the f/3.5, but it has more problems with flare than the f/3.5 or most of the other UW.

Tamron SP AF 10-24mm - I think this lens has the lowest price. Flare is a problem. Did I mention the low price?

I bought one two days ago for my 7D. Wanted it for dramatic photos of beaches and other outdoor shots. I will be very glad I purchased it any time I travel and am in buildings where I want pictures of the ceilings (specifically churches in Italy - really wish I had this lens the last time I was at the Vatican!). I haven't tested mine out yet as it just arrived this morning, but I have used one in the past and it was awesome. My "walk around" lens is the Canon 17-55mm. Also a great lens.

1Tanker wrote in post #14737230
It's an excellent lens.. i just went walking around town with it 1/2 hour ago.. the creativity it can bring out in your shots, is phenomenal! It's sharp, great color, handles flare very well, and distortion is great( for such width). Focus is instantaneous and silent..and accurate. Build is good, not great, but quite good enough. Only 2 complaints for me; it's pretty expensive, and i'm not particularly fond of it's 6-blade aperture. I love sunstars/lightstars, and the 6-blades only give 6 points of light, whereas a 7-blade would give 14 points.

Hits the nail on the head for me. The only EF-S lens I have, and even with the 5DII and 17mm TSE I have no intention of selling mine (I might consider it if none of my backup cameras were ever likely to be crop).

andrikos wrote in post #14738893
I'm seriously addicted to mine and I've had it for going on 6 years now. Highly recommended to UWA junkies.

The only lens I'd consider replacing it with (but I'd have to go FF) would be the spectacular TS-E 17mm so I can perform the perspective correction without needing a crane to elevate myself halfway to building height... (or cropping heavily)

Gosh, yes, for UWA junkies FF+17mm TSE is well... umm... I don't think I can find the words..... sniff....

You'd love it!

Awesome lens, loved this on my 7D.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/wallerni/473564​3864/

I recommend the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. It has a good image quality and it's not so expensive. The problem is that there are some exemplars which are decentred or has a focus which does not work acceptably.

It's just a fun lens. Image quality is great. Get used to how it works as far as distortion, if you know it going in, you will be thrilled with the out come.

Jety wrote in post #14746287
I recommend the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. It has a good image quality and it's not so expensive. The problem is that there are some exemplars which are decentred or has a focus which does not work acceptably.

Nothing really against Sigma, however over the years I have seen so many people by sigma lenses that find out after that they are either front or back focusing. And I just don't want to go down that road with the 60d as it doesn't have the micro focus adjustment like the 7d and other bodies.

I think I will just keep saving my pennies and get the Canon 10-22, and who knows I may even come across a good deal on a used one sometime, maybe someone who has one that has upgraded to a full frame body will be selling theirs off. I am in no big rush, and like I said earlier I have no problem paying good $ for a good product.

Islandhitman wrote in post #14746362
Nothing really against Sigma, however over the years I have seen so many people by sigma lenses that find out after that they are either front or back focusing.

There are enough people having a good and sharp exemplar. In my opinion it is not worth to spend twice as much bucks for the Canon. But if you have the money nobody holds you up to buy it.

Get it you will love it... Mine was very sharp and I loved it...

I had a 10-22, but purchased a 5D and did a even up trade for a 17-40. Now I'm working on a deal to trade back to a 10-22 since I'm selling my 5D.

Islandhitman wrote in post #14746362
Nothing really against Sigma, however over the years I have seen so many people by sigma lenses that find out after that they are either front or back focusing. And I just don't want to go down that road with the 60d as it doesn't have the micro focus adjustment like the 7d and other bodies.

When I tried the Sigma I found that it had an even worse problem - it was impossible to get both sides of the image sharp. That's a problem that can't be fixed by MFA and, as a search will soon show, it's not an unusual problem with this lens.