EF-S 10-22mm w/ 50D shock.....

This thread is worthless without pics

Anyone used the Tokina 12-24 and had similar results (on 50D)?

My 10-22 has the red ring...

jbrown7815 wrote in post #7843143
This thread is worthless without pics

Here's one of mine...

The 10-22 is a beauty. Its expensive, but well worth it for crop cameras in my book.

Here are some shots using the 10-22mm lens at the recent Langley Open House.

kingdaddy wrote in post #7841934
I thought all Wide angle lenses are inhearntly sarp because of their DOF.

Anyway I love my 10-22

Eh..not so much, Wide angles can have issues with corner sharpness...its easier to make an APS-C one sharper for this reason [Reduced image circle] and theoretically the EF-S short back focus design should enable some excellent wides...which it has..the 10-22 is definately not a bad lens!

The Sigma is great, dont get me wrong, its greatness comes from its price [Its the cheapest one out there] and the fact its 80-90% as good as the 10-22 and 11-16

The Tokina 11-16 if i remember right is the absolute sharpest, followed by the 10-22, and the 12-24 is up there as well, the Sigma is a close but distant 4th or third, but usually gets recommended up near the top because of the price/performance ratio, considering you can get one for less than $300 if you're patient, its a hard to beat value

I have an excellent copy and I find it a tough decision to part with it, I love it, and I NEED it, but at the same time after using my Tamron 28-75 and my 100-400 it is -not- as critically sharp as either [Of course this isnt a "fair" comparison I guess..] at the wide-middle ends [Its a lot sharper near the long end] and sometimes I do feel I'd like to have the f/2.8 aperture, So I'm debating on grabbing a Tokina 11-16 to add to my system...

Here are a few shots I took with the 10-22 on my wife's 20D. it's a nice lens - I am keen to try the Tokina 11-16 though.

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

Why doesn't the 10-22 get a better optical score on this review?

http://www.photozone.d​e …non_1022_3545_5​0d?start=2

For one, it's harder to test UW's. Secondly, extreme borders are never that great on UW's, especially zooms, no matter their cost. Then there is copy variations although the 10-22 doesn't seem to suffer very much from this, based on what one reads here; I don't recall anybody complaining about 10-22 softness, for example. Most people will also use it stopped down, where borders and center sharpness usually improves although the 10-22 center resolution is very good in the center wide open.

Before I recently sold mine I tried it on my 5D. The center sharpness is incredible but, being designed for a smaller image sensor, the extreme borders and borders were not acceptable to me. It workded without vignetting between 16-22mm. I sold it and bought the 17-40.

UW's are lenses where "tests" don't reflect real life results, imo. The Canon 10-22 is a killer lens, imo.

bohdank wrote in post #8065136
For one, it's harder to test UW's. Secondly, extreme borders are never that great on UW's, especially zooms, no matter their cost. Then there is copy variations although the 10-22 doesn't seem to suffer very much from this, based on what one reads here; I don't recall anybody complaining about 10-22 softness, for example. Most people will also use it stopped down, where borders and center sharpness usually improves although the 10-22 center resolution is very good in the center wide open.

Before I recently sold mine I tried it on my 5D. The center sharpness is incredible but, being designed for a smaller image sensor, the extreme borders and borders were not acceptable to me. It workded without vignetting between 16-22mm. I sold it and bought the 17-40.

UW's are lenses where "tests" don't reflect real life results, imo. The Canon 10-22 is a killer lens, imo.

I find that with a UWA 90% of it is the look and dramatic perspective more than absolute sharpness

More important is flare control imho....Flare control and contrast [Which are related] are important in a UWA picture...

UW are generally used for dramatic shots usually involving foreground backround relationships (large DOF) or very close in, which require sharpness for convincing effect, imo.

Flare control on an UW is far more important than on longer lenses, imo. It's a deal breaker.

It's not too shabby on the 40D either! I love how I can manage slower shutter speeds hand held with this lens.

EDIT: everyone's posting, so here's a recent one from mine:

Damn.....I hope camera store has one in stock tommorrow !

James.D wrote in post #8064590
Why doesn't the 10-22 get a better optical score on this review?

http://www.photozone.d​e …non_1022_3545_5​0d?start=2

I dont get a lot of Photozone reviews. The majority of the L zoom lenses tested only score 3 stars optically, not counting the 70-200. PZ seems to be under the wing of the third party guys....and who doesnt like an underdog.....
Check this out.

Photozone:
The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM delivered a very sound performance with a combination of very decent build quality and very good if not impressive optical results. If anything vignetting at wide-open aperture could be better. The center performance is excellent throughout the range with generally good borders. The level of distortions is surprisingly low and CAs are quite well controlled.

Naturally it makes sense to compare the lens to a serious competitor like the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X Pro DX. All in all the resolution figures are very similar. The Canon has less CAs and a better contra light performance whereas the Tokina shows less vignetting. The build quality of the Tokina is also a little better (the Canon is more than "good enough" though) and finally the Tokina is substantially cheaper (420 EUR vs 670 EUR locally).
So which one to choose ? Well ... that's still up to you. Optical Quality: