Canon 10-22mm with polarizer, or something else?

I've a few questions for all you professionals here .. a lens recommendation.

I'm going to be getting an XSi, body only. Probably buying new from B&H. I have a few thoughts for first lenses, but I can't decide on a wide angle lens.

My first lens will probably be an 85mm f/1.8, mostly for portrait work. From all I can tell and see, it's a great lens that works with my amount of money. Everyone says to get Canon's cheap 50mm prime. To me it seems like a mediocre lens, not specifically for anything, taking okay photos of everything.

With that in mind, I need a wide angle lens. My inclination is a 10-22mm. I like the pictures I've seen taken with it, and being able to get it for $600 some makes it reasonable. Now, here's the reason I wouldn't want it. I plan on using a circular polarizer for most of my shots. Landscape blue sky type stuff. With that wide an angle the polarizing is going to be un-even.
Should I not worry about it and use it at 22mm when I want more even polarization? How uneven will it be at 22mm?

I haven't found another lens that I like. In 35mm they are either not nice enough or too expensive.
Suggestions would be appreciated.

Or... should I just get a cheaper lens than either of those? Will I not be utilizing nearly the potential of the 10-22?
I'll include a couple shots to gauge my ability with.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

The uneven effect of a polariser depends on your angle to the sun. The band of sky at 90 degrees to the direction of the sun is the most highly polarised, and the effect diminishes gradually either side of that band as the angle changes. Therefore with the sun behind you, there might not be much of a problem, whereas if you're shooting at 90 degrees to the sun your polariser can give you a dark band across the middle of the frame.

The simple solution is not to use a polariser with such a wide angle. With post-processing it's a very simple matter to deepen the blue of the sky if you feel it's warranted. Or use an ND Grad.

I use a Polarizer on my 16-35 f2.8 and since it's used on a full frame camera it's exactly like a 10-22 on a 1.6. It's absolutely true that at 16mm one side of the sky will be more noticeably bluer than the other. I still use the Polarizer in spite of this simply because I can then sample that colour blue in Photoshop, and use the gradient filter to correct the non Polarized side of the image. I'm sure it could be figured out but there's no blue to me like Polarized Blue, and this technique makes it easier to get there.

Besides I use the Polarizer filter for about 1% of the images that I make with the 16-35 so even if the P filter didn't work the way I'd like it too, the 16-35 - as a lens - is still invaluable to me.

I use the B+W 77E Slim Cir. Polarizer with my 10-22 and the EW-83E lens hood. Polarize first then slip on hood if needed. If you have very skinny fingers then you might be able to keep the hood on while setting up.

I'm not a fan of the polarized unevenness you get on a WA lens. As Mark said, use a GND instead. The results are much more pleasant and it will darken evenly across the frame no matter what your angle to the sun is.

Thanks for the tips.
I understand how graduated filters work, but I don't understand how they help on a wide angle lens. How do they work differently on a WA lens than a circular polarizer does?
Does anyone happen to have a picture taken with the 10-22 and a circular polarizer, showing the variation of polarization?

Overall, I'm hearing it's a good idea to get the 10-22mm. I like that.

outbri wrote in post #7681561
Thanks for the tips.
I understand how graduated filters work, but I don't understand how they help on a wide angle lens. How do they work differently on a WA lens than a circular polarizer does?
Does anyone happen to have a picture taken with the 10-22 and a circular polarizer, showing the variation of polarization?

Overall, I'm hearing it's a good idea to get the 10-22mm. I like that.

Polerizors have difficulty keeping the same level of effect over the wide field of the lens as the angle of the light greatly affects the streangth of the effect. With a GND the effect is not affected by the angle to the light source therefore the effect remains constant across the entire field of view. This is most noticable in the sky. With the polerizor it can be deep blue in one corner and white in the other. The GND will be much more even across the entire field.

The 10-22 is a lens to have if you have a 1.6 crop. I am using a CPL on it and I am very happy with the results. There may be some unevenness, but the contrast and colors are awesome.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

Thanks for the picture sebr.
Looks like I'll probably be going with it, I can get 13% off a $645 like-new BIN on ebay.

As the proud owner of a Canon 550D and among other notable lenses, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is just plain awesome. It's a creative lens, and that's why the uneven gradient caused by CPLs don't seem to bother some photographers.

I'd encourage the original poster to purchase the 10-22, and then consider filters after he or she has had a chance to really figure out the best way to use it. For example, in the OP's second (middle image) I might have moved more along the ridge, used the 10-22, panned up and to the right a bit to capture the ridge line with the clouds.

However, don't use ebay. Use the "marketplace" section of this forum or FredMiranda.com's bull/sell board. This way, you'll be connecting with other photographers who take care of their equipment and you'll have a much smoother transaction. Plus, if you decide the 10-22's not for you, you can sell it back for about the same price you purchased it.

OP, post some photos once you've used your new lens!

Regards, RTMoore