Thoughts on the Canon 10-18mm

Hi.
I have been saving money for some time to buy a wide angle lens. At the moment i have only a Tamron 28-75mm but i find my self very often wishing for a wider lens.
It is now - finally - time to get it! =)

I have been looking around and i think the Canon 10-18mm might be a good choice.
Pros:
- It would still be quite wide on my crop sensor camera (Canon 60D),
- it has the same diameter (ø=67mm) as my other lens so my filters will work,
- it is quite cheap (around 250€) and
- i have seen some very good reviews.
Cons:
- I like night photography and i'm afraid f/4.5-5.6 is too slow,
- i'm afraid it has low image quality compared to other lenses,
- 10mm to 18mm is already good, but maybe there are some lenses with better range

Other options would be the Canon 10-22mm (500€), the Sigma 10-20mm (370€), Tokina 11-16mm (500€),...
but they all cost much more.
Is the price difference worth it?

Have any of you used any of these lenses?

Any advices?
Thanks!
=)

I went through the same thinking when I was looking for a UWA zoom. The 10-18 was not out then.

The choices I considered were

Canon EF-S 10-22

By every description an L quality lens. Still it is better than the EFS 10-18, but more expensive. I concur with this judgement, based on every 10-18 photo I 've seen. Takes 77 mm filters

Sigma 8-16

The best UWA for crop factor Sigma makes. Crazy sharp and flare resistant. Its bulbous front element makes attaching filters a very expensive proposition or a DIY project.

Tokina 11-16 f2.8

The only constant aperture zoom and f2.8 at that. Very flare prone but also a very sharp lens. It also accepts 77 mm filters.

In the end I chose the Sigma 8-16 for its extreme wide angle. The lens is very sharp and very impressive for its control of distortion (think about it... a 8 mm non-fish eye (rectilinear) lens!).

Here is what it can do at 8mm (cropped of course).

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zpse98d96e​9.jpg.html

The 10-18 seems to review similar or slightly behind the EF-M 11-22. I had the EF-S 10-22 and the EF-M 11-22 at the same time, and kept only the 11-22. For landscape and hiking type use it was a full letter grade better than the 10-22.
Long story short, don't be afraid of the IQ of the 10-18, however the other factors still come into play.

I have the 10-18 and I have used both the Canon 10-22 and Tonika 11-16. The 2.8 is ice of the 11-16 however its so short in focal length that its pretty limited to just UWA in my opinion. The 10-22 is heavy and HUGE. if you dont like size that can be a downnfall to it.

That being said I have used my 10-18 in places I shouldnt have and its been holding up great. Image quality is great, worked awesome for shooting xmas videos on my sl1. Im very happy with the money I spent on it.

thanks guys.
Yes, the lenses you talk about are also some of the ones i am considering. But of course the is a really big price difference...
It is great to ear from you some hands on experiences.
At the moment i am leaning very much to buy the 10-18mm, even being a slower lens.

Has anyone maybe tried using it for some night photography? Maybe even Star Trails or Milky Way, or light painting? Or is it much too slow for that?

=)

boguz wrote in post #17397296
thanks guys.
Yes, the lenses you talk about are also some of the ones i am considering. But of course the is a really big price difference...
It is great to ear from you some hands on experiences.
At the moment i am leaning very much to buy the 10-18mm, even being a slower lens.

Has anyone maybe tried using it for some night photography? Maybe even Star Trails or Milky Way, or light painting? Or is it much too slow for that?

=)

Heya,

Depends on the camera. With enough ISO, it's not a problem to have F4~F5.6 aperture.

I use the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 (night) and Canon EF-S 10-22 (day).

I don't need STM nor IS so the EF-S 10-18 didn't really register on my radar. The 10-22 simply handles flare better and to me that's more important in an ultrawide. For me, ultrawide is judged by corner sharpness stopped down, ability to take filters and flare handling.

By the way, the EF-S 10-22 is lighter than the Tokina 11-16. The 10-22 is a nice lens. But the Tokina is a metal tank and weighs it. Neither are heavy lenses by any means so I wouldn't worry about this at all.

If you really want a lens for night time stuff, I would get a separate lens that is fast enough for night lighting. Don't try to get a day time ultrawide that will also function as a good night lens. They often do not do both.

Very best,

The difference in speed between the 10-18 and 10-22 is only 2/3 f-stop. And the 10-18 has IS, which would more than offset the difference in lens speed, at least for stationary objects.

18-28 still leaves a range open that many people like to shot within. There is also the Tokina 12-28 which is the improved 12-24 version which had many fans.

I my opinion the 10-18mm STM is one of those great bang for your buck lenses that come along once in a while. I bought one mainly for shooting video but as a stills lens it's also very good. Sharp wide open also.

It's heaps of fun to use at 10mm with quite a bit of wide angle distortion.

yogestee wrote in post #17399260
I my opinion the 10-18mm STM is one of those great bang for your buck lenses that come along once in a while. I bought one mainly for shooting video but as a stills lens it's also very good. Sharp wide open also.

It's heaps of fun to use at 10mm with quite a bit of wide angle distortion.

Agreed! I think every one of Canon's STM lenses are great "bang for the buck" lenses. They are all outstanding.

msowsun wrote in post #17399282
Agreed! I think every one of Canon's STM lenses are great "bang for the buck" lenses. They are all outstanding.

*like*

msowsun wrote in post #17399282
Agreed! I think every one of Canon's STM lenses are great "bang for the buck" lenses. They are all outstanding.

You'd know; I think you have most of them.

All but the new 24-105 STM.

Agree with the bang for your buck comments. Just picked up a Canon refurbished for 229 USD. So far, I like. I've shot the 10-22 and haven't noticed much difference.

boguz wrote in post #17396459
Hi.
Cons:
- I like night photography and i'm afraid f/4.5-5.6 is too slow,
- i'm afraid it has low image quality compared to other lenses,
- 10mm to 18mm is already good, but maybe there are some lenses with better range

Don't be too afraid of the dark. At 10mm with IS you should be able to get sharp images (as long as the subject is static) hand held at at least 1/4 second.