Canon 10-22 or 10-18

I am looking to purchase a UWA lens for my 7d and am torn between the 10-22 and 10-18. I have used the 10-22 many times and really like it but I don't know if its worth the extra $350?

Heya,

If you want better flare control, and overall optically better, the 10-22 is the way to go.

If you want the cheapest route because you're not using ultrawide very much and you just want to play around, get the 10-18.

Very best,

What MalVeauX said!

(But) I would have went the 10-18mm if it were around when I was buying.

UWA is my least used zoom. Since I knew it was going to be my least used zoom, I went with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM. It is not quite as good as the 10-22, but it is pretty close.

The Sigma could be an option too.

I'd almost be tempted to get the 10-18mm for the IS. It'd be great for the sunset/golden hour shots when the light is fading.

kawi_200 wrote in post #17071386
I'd almost be tempted to get the 10-18mm for the IS. It'd be great for the sunset/golden hour shots when the light is fading.

Heya,

I wouldn't try to shoot a portrait in low light with IS and natural light. Sure, it's possible, but it really isn't optimal at all. This is what ISO is for. I find Ultrawide to be one of the focal ranges where IS really isn't something I worry about. And I shoot a lot of ultrawide/landscape/su​nset.

Why I stress the portrait thing is because if you're shooting at 1/10s or slower, with IS, it doesn't matter if the shake on the sunset is handled, a human moves slightly and that will blur no matter what at this level to an extent.

Very best,

If i had it to do over again.. knowing how much i don't use the UWA, i would pick the 10-18 over the 10-22. I considered selling my 10-22 to grab the 10-18 and hopefully pocket some money, or put the money towards more gear. Umm.. it's not worth it, by the time i pay tax/shipping, buy a lens hood, and for what i'd get for the 10-22... i wouldn't have too much left over.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17071392
Heya,

I wouldn't try to shoot a portrait in low light with IS and natural light. Sure, it's possible, but it really isn't optimal at all. This is what ISO is for. I find Ultrawide to be one of the focal ranges where IS really isn't something I worry about. And I shoot a lot of ultrawide/landscape/su​nset.

Why I stress the portrait thing is because if you're shooting at 1/10s or slower, with IS, it doesn't matter if the shake on the sunset is handled, a human moves slightly and that will blur no matter what at this level to an extent.

Very best,

There's other uses for an UWA Mark..ie. car shows (where a tripod is prohibitive). I would take IS on an UWA any day.

If you already used the 10-22 why not rent the 10-18 and see if it works for you. I've looked at both and for the money savings I think the extra cost of the 10-22 isn't worth it for me at least.

1Tanker wrote in post #17071406
There's other uses for an UWA Mark..ie. car shows (where a tripod is prohibitive). I would take IS on an UWA any day.

This is one example of where IS can be helpful on any lens. A stationary object. But shooting golden hour portraits of humans? I wouldn't stress IS there.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17071392
Heya,

I wouldn't try to shoot a portrait in low light with IS and natural light. Sure, it's possible, but it really isn't optimal at all. This is what ISO is for. I find Ultrawide to be one of the focal ranges where IS really isn't something I worry about. And I shoot a lot of ultrawide/landscape/su​nset.

Why I stress the portrait thing is because if you're shooting at 1/10s or slower, with IS, it doesn't matter if the shake on the sunset is handled, a human moves slightly and that will blur no matter what at this level to an extent.

Very best,

they never said portrait, pretty sure they meant landscape and for those precious dynamic range is needed. Hence lower ISO by using IS is a godsend.

I'm in the same boat and have been leaning towards the 10-22 because I have been dabbling in astrophotography, but not enough to justify buying a 11-16. The lack of a distance scale makes me wonder how easy focusing on the stars would be with a focus by wire setup with no stop in an STM lens. Also the additional 2/3 stop less aperture at 10mm would be really slow for that.

However I estimate that the astro stuff would only cover about 20% of what I would use an UWA for. So for the other 80% the 10-18 would be great for. It seems hard for me to justify the additional cost to cover that 20%. Now hearing people's comments about not using their UWA that much and wishing they had saved $ on it complicates things for me.

For the OP, I see you don't have anything wider than 28mm for the 7D, but have a 18-55 on EOS M. How often do you use the 18-28 range on that? Have you thought about buying an EOS-M 11-22 STM imported from a Canadian dealer? Also there is the Tokina 12-28 that would pair right up to your 28-135 giving you no gaps there if that is important to you.

you can get the 10-22mm for $519 refurbished...makes the price a little closer...it seems like a hard decision to make...another lens to consider is the sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6...it's a lot closer to the 10-18mm price, and is close to the 10-22mm IQ wise...

for me, my UWA is pretty much exclusively used as a landscape lens...f8, tripod if i can...and if i'm not on a tripod, i'm normally not close to slow shutter speeds where IS would matter...but i'm also a cheap person, so i'd be between the 10-18mm, and the sigma 10-20mm

FEChariot wrote in post #17071577
I'm in the same boat and have been leaning towards the 10-22 because I have been dabbling in astrophotography, but not enough to justify buying a 11-16. The lack of a distance scale makes me wonder how easy focusing on the stars would be with a focus by wire setup with no stop in an STM lens.

Manual focus using LiveView x10 is the best way of getting accurate focus when shooting stars. Using a distance scale isn't really useful. So I wouldn't let that worry me.

FEChariot wrote in post #17071577
Also the additional 2/3 stop less aperture at 10mm would be really slow for that.

Now that does make a difference - and is the reason I own both a 10-22 and an 11-16. That extra 2/3 stop translates into roughly twice as many stars for the same exposure time and ISO.

I am looking at UWAs too and am also considering the Samyang 8 mm.

hollis_f wrote in post #17071752
Manual focus using LiveView x10 is the best way of getting accurate focus when shooting stars. Using a distance scale isn't really useful. So I wouldn't let that worry me.

Oh jeez. I was trying to see through the viewfinder when I was shooting using my 17-50. I guess I falled back to film days mentality in the dark. Will the LCD be darker when using a slower lens though? I'm not so where I can test that for myself.