Customer Reviews

298 Reviews
5 star:
4 star:
3 star:
2 star:
1 star:
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review

922 of 962 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The answer to the crop sensor problem.
My take on this lens is that it is an "L" quality optic in a fine, non "L" package. There is nothing else on the market to compete with it (nothing at all), and it produces supurb images. It isn't an f/2.8 lens, but it is close enough for most uses. The competition from Tamron is a full stop slower, not as sharp, and is awful in dim light compared to the Canon 10-22 lens...
Published on November 19, 2006 by Jim Krupnik

85 of 107 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Not bad, but no other options
If you have a 1.6x cropped sensor, then this is really the only super wide angle lens canon makes. The crop factor makes this equivalent to a 16-35mm lens on a full sensor. The construction quality feels solid and well built. That said, this is not an "L" lens. I'm not an "L" snob ... I'll take a value where ever I can get it. The sharpness on this lens is pretty...
Published on September 17, 2006 by Matt Dotson

‹ Previous | 1 230 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

922 of 962 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The answer to the crop sensor problem., November 19, 2006
Jim Krupnik "jkrupnik" (Watchung, NJ United States) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
My take on this lens is that it is an "L" quality optic in a fine, non "L" package. There is nothing else on the market to compete with it (nothing at all), and it produces supurb images. It isn't an f/2.8 lens, but it is close enough for most uses. The competition from Tamron is a full stop slower, not as sharp, and is awful in dim light compared to the Canon 10-22 lens (sorry, Tamron fans, but the Tamron lens isn't even playing in the same ballpark).

I use this lens on a 30D body, and I always keep it on hand if I'm doing any indoor, or tight group photography. It is the perfect solution to the perennial problem of not having enough room to capture all the kids at a birthday party in one shot because your back is up against a wall. This lens will just about get your toes into the picture at the widest setting, yet delivers tack sharp, colorful, and contrasty images. The auto focus is spot on, silent, and fast. It is a must have lens for the active amateur, or any pro using a 1.6 crop factor camera. You simply can't beat this lens with anything available on the market today.

That beng said, do not try to convince yourself that this will make a good "walkaround" lens. It isn't. Even at max length, it is far too short to live on your camera as a standard lens. You need this lens, even if you don't know it yet, but it should not be your first lens, as it will only be used 15 to 20 percent of the time. At those times, it's performance simply cannot be equaled by any other zoom lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera. You will be amazed by the quality of this lens. It rivals the performance of modern prime lenses, presents a bright viewfinder image, and delivers the goods in tight situations.

This is not a casual assessment, nor a Canon "feel good" moment on my part. I developed my first B&W contact prints in 1964, in my own darkroom at the age of 9 (my parents were concerned:)), and have been an avid photographer ever since. Small, medium, and large format cameras and lenses have passed through my hands over the years, and Canon has become my favorite small format brand. Still, Canon builds some trash lenses that should be avoided. The 10-22 USM is not one of them :).

Before you go out and buy this lens, you should already own the EF-S 17-55mm IS f/2.8 lens. That is the king of 1.6 crop factor standard lenses, and includes the awesome Canon IS feature. It will end up being mounted on your camera 80% of the time, and keep you smiling after every shoot. Get that lens first. Then, get the 10-22mm lens. Then, let your imagination run wild, and plan on serious telephoto lenses for the future. Trust me or not, the two lenses mentioned above will provide you with photographic tools that will astound you. Get them in your kit as soon as you can afford them.

A little warning about either lens.... Some here will argue the point, but with either lens, get a GOOD quality UV filter that is multi-coated on both sides, and built extra thin to avoid vignetting at wide lens settings. A good filter will cost a little less than one hundred Dollars, and can cost up to one hundred forty Dollars. The minimum brand would be Hoya Pro 1 multi coated filters, and the ante goes up from there.

Everything else is garbage, including the Canon "sharp cut" filter that costs less than fifty bucks. No kidding, no conjecture. If you use cheap filters, you will never see what your lens can really do. Ever. No doubt that many will respond with claims that their twenty Dollar filter works just fine, but they simply don't know any better, and have never used their expensive equipment to it's full potential. It's akin to a Chevy owner passing judgement on a Mercedes Benz. The Chevy might feel real good, but until you own the Mercedes, you just have no clue.

Bottom line.... Make sure that the quality of your filters exceed the quality of your lenses. Yes, at a hundred bucks a pop for a 77mm filter, it hurts, but you will never regret it. Also, Amazon does not stock lens hoods for all non L Canon lenses. The price is stupid high for those hoods, but they make a night and day difference in in picture quality. Whenever you order a non L Canon lens, find a web seller who has the hood in stock, and get it right now. Again, you will never regret owning it.

That's it for my review/rant. Buy this lens. Buy the 17-55 IS f/2,8 first. Buy the lens hoods for both. Toss any "kit" lenses that came with the camera in the trash bin (where they belong), and be very happy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

276 of 293 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The best lens I own, March 29, 2005
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
I have had this lens for several months now and let me start out by saying WOW. I looked at the lens in the store along with the Sigma 12-24 and I was in total awe of what I saw though the view finder with the Canon 10-22. This is an ultra wide angle lens that is incredible. I went home and thought about where I would use this lens and determined that I would use it quite a bit. I went ahead and bought the lens and I continue to be more impressed with it every time I use it. I have used the lens for both close-up (which can give you some very interesting distortion shots)and wide angle shots with great success.

The 10-22mm is equivalent to 16-35mm field of view using a canon 20D which is not a full frame sensor. With a minimum focal distance of .24m (about 9.5 inches) you can get very close to objects and still get alot of focal width in the photo. There is incredible clarity in the lens. The photos I have taken are very clear with only a slight hint of softening at the corners at 10mm; everything else is sharp after that. There is a little barrel distortion at 10mm but everything else up to 22mm is nice. I have not gotten any light flare in my photos. The Ultrasonic motor is very quiet. The depth of field is outstanding. A slim UV filter helps prevent some slight vignetting at 10mm. With a maximum aperture that ranges from f/3.5 to f/4.5, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens is a medium speed lens. I would recommend using a tripod if you are at all unsure about your ability to hold the camera still for action shots with this lens. The lens it's self is fairly light weight. If you are going to use filters the lens requires 77mm.

The lens can produce some interesting distortion shots if you are taking close-ups and are not perpendicular to the object. For close-up shots with out distortion it is best to be perpendicular to the object.

Inside the lens housing there are three aspherical lens elements and a Super UD element that produce clear vibrant shots. The lens it's self sturdily built and comfortable to handle.

UPDATE 7/30/2011: I still love this lens. It functions every bit as well as it did the day I got it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

599 of 645 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Very good lens, but expensive, March 28, 2005
Svend (Seattle, WA USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
I am very impressed with this lens. I didn't realize just how wide-angle this lens was. At 10mm, I can stand just a few feet in front of a 13-story building, and get the whole thing in the picture, from the entrance to the top of the building.

As with all very-wide lenses, you have to be careful that you don't have people at the edges of the frame or too close to the lens, or they will appear very distorted when taking pictures at 10mm. Also note that a wide angle lens is not easy to use at first to create compelling images, as it's very easy to include too much clutter in your compositions.

- optical quality is excellent (deserves an "L" lens designation)
- uses the higher quality ring-type USM focusing
- minimum focusing distance is very close
- surprisingly lightweight
- very flare-resistant even without hood
- the only option for EOS digital cameras (Rebel, Rebel XT, 20D) to get true wide angle shots due to the smaller APS-C sensor in those cameras.

- It's expensive! But at least it is cheaper than a year ago.
- The lens is a little soft in the corners at 10mm, but is very sharp at 12mm and up.
- Canon has not formally committed to how long they will continue to make cameras and lenses using the EF-S system.
- The lens currently only works on the lower-end dSLR cameras -- the 10D, 1D, 1Ds, and 5D cameras cannot use this lens.
- The hood is not included with this lens, but it's such as ugly hood and the lens doesn't have flare problems, so I don't really think it is necessary anyway.

In 5 years when you upgrade your camera, there is a possibility that it will not support this lens. This depends on what direction Canon goes in making camera sensors:
1) continue to make cameras that use the smaller APS-C sensor, and keep improving its density to support more and more resolution. This will help keep the dSLR cameras smaller and lighter, and will necessitate making EF-S lenses the standard.
2) make the sensors match the size of a frame of 35mm film. And at the same time increase the density to yield even more resolution. Right now sensors this big are very expensive to produce.

I now think that #2 is more likely to happen. All the other lenses out there are built for a 35mm-film-sized sensor, and now that Canon has released another full-frame camera (5D) at a lower price, I'm betting that in another few years the APS-C sensor will be practically obsolete. A 5D body and 16-35 or 17-40 lens will give you better results than a 20D with this lens, but the difference in price between the two setups is a few thousand dollars right now.

The 10-22 is an excellent lens, but it will probably not hold its value as well as the Canon 16-35 and 17-40 lenses. A slightly more affordable alternative is the Sigma 10-20mm, which sounds like it nearly equals the optical quality of this lens.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

77 of 84 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A lens worth buying a digital slr for, September 1, 2005
Todd Salerno (berkeley, ca United States) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
I've been more or less addicted to wide angle photography for the last 20 years or thereabouts. Unfortunately, ultra wide angle shooters have been left out of reasonably accessible digital slr photography until very recently. Now there are several viable name brand options available, namely the Canon 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 reviewed here, the Nikon 12-24mm f4, and the Zuiko 7-14mm f4. Because of the 3 different crop factors involved, these lenses end up being pretty close in (35mm equivalent) effective range; 16-35 for the Canon, 18-36 for the Nikon, and 14-28 for the Olympus. Many will caution against purchasing these lenses since they cannot cover the full frame 24x36 format, and cannot even be mounted on a regular body. In the Olympus' case, it doesn't matter since the company has staked its fortunes on the smaller 4/3rds sensor format, and has opened it up to other manufacturers such as Fuji and Panasonic. With the Nikon and Canon, you are taking a leap of faith that the companies will continue to produce 1.5 and 1.6 crop factor sensors into the future so that you will be able to take your crop-only lenses to upgraded digital bodies down the line. To my mind, Olympus has already demonstrated the desirable technical characteristics of a smaller sensor format, so there is good reason to believe that smaller than full frame sensors are here to stay. By extending the glass beyond the mount and into the body, and/or covering a smaller circle, Canon and Nikon are providing those same technical benefits to users of their smaller sensor cameras, namely sharp, extra wide angle in a compact package. Besides which, I'm much more concerned with the photos I couldn't take if I stayed away from the product, than I am with its unknown future upgrade path.

While the Olympus lens and 4/3rds system was intriguing, I felt that the 7-14mm wasn't worth more than double the price of the Canon for 2 extra mm at the wide end. It's also double the weight - making it impractical for use as an everyday lens, and negating the advantages of the E-1 body. So, I was pretty much down to the Canon or the Nikon (or the always available Waitsomemore).

At this point, I should say I'm platform agnostic. In the 80's I happily used Minolta equipment. In the 90's I bought some Nikon gear to use their 15mm prime lens. Basically, if it suits my purposes, I don't care what the label is.

Back to the lenses. The Nikon is more expensive and less wide, but it does have the continuous maximum apeture throughout the range. The Canon is wider, a tad lighter, and a tiny amount faster at the wide end. Both appear to be excellent choices, but I could not consider them independently of the cameras they would be mated to. Since I did not already own a digital body, it also came down to a decision between the Canon 20d & Nikon D70s. Here, the Canon wins for me on quality of sensor and a host of other details.

In practice, the lens is a joy to use. It's sharp. The zoom allows it to be as wide as you need it, which is an improvement over my previous favorite Minolta 20mm 2.8, though it does lack the depth of field scales which the Minolta has. The zoom also allows for keeping the lens mounted without switching as often, and that's important for keeping out dust. It's a very solidly built, quality instrument. Focus is fast if you're into that sort of thing, and nearly silent with the ultrasonic motor. The lens does not extend in length for zooming or focusing, though the front elements do move slightly inside the barrel. Mated to the 20d it's a tool that exceeds my previous film cameras in just about every way imaginable. I'm finally free to make the ultrawide photos that I want to make in the digital domain and the initial results have been outstanding.

If you're into ultrawide and want to go digital, the 20d with 10-22 is a fantastic setup. If you've already gone digital and want to try wide angle, (assuming your camera can use ef-s lenses) this is a true bargain - you get a 16mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm all rolled into one. It makes me positively giddy. Thank you, Canon!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

49 of 52 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars So where's the red line for this excellent lens?, July 9, 2005
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
Another reviewer opined that this lens deserves the "L" rating, which Canon reserves for its very best and denotes by putting a red line around the barrel near the objective lens. I agree.

I guess Canon felt that the 3.5-4.5 max apertures were too small, making the lens a little slower than they like for their top models. (So why the red line for the 100-400 zoom at 4.5-5.6? Or the 17-40 zoom at 4.0?) Maybe Canon thinks the 10-22 is not red-line material because it's an EF-S, usable only on Rebels and 20Ds. Hey, it's almost a reason to buy a Rebel or a 20D And its 77-mm business end assures LOTS of light gets to your CMOS.

Okay, all that aside, in the real world this is an excellent, excellent lens. It's so wide-angle you can almost look around corners with it. Yes, it "fisheyes" at the lower half of its range of magnification. (So what else is new for wide-angles?) The 10-22 handles low-light conditions well. I shot a street festival at twilight using ambient light only and have surprisingly bright, clear images. Clear? This lens knows nothing else.

It handles macro/close-ups very well.

This is not the lens I normally keep on my camera, but it's the one I ALWAYS slip into a pocket or bag before going out to shoot, because when I need wide-angle (and don't we almost always need wide-angle lens at some point in a shoot?), it delivers. Big time.

I can't say enough good about this the 10-22. Don't hesitate to get this lens.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

47 of 50 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars My photographic "pride and joy", actual score is 4.5 stars, March 15, 2007
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
I have owned this lens for about 16 months and am extremely pleased with it. I have a Digital Rebel (300D), so the EF-S designation is perfect for me (for now). It took a little getting used to, as I had never shot with a ultra wide lens before, but I love the possibilities it offers. For instance, I can stand remarkably close to a large object (i.e. building, monument, landscape feature) and easily fit the entire object in the frame. There is, of course, considerable trapezoidal effect in these shots, but that can be corrected fairly easily in Photoshop.

While shopping for an ultra wide lens, I visited a local camera shop and compared the EF-S 10-22 to a 17-40 L on my Digital Rebel. The sales guy and I went outside, took several shots with each lens, downloaded them to a computer in the store and compared them side-by-side. We took the same shot with the same settings, then the same shot with each lens wide open. The results were extremely surprising.

There was no noticeable difference in color or sharpness quality between the two lenses in the focal areas of the images. Both lenses produced very good images, but the L lens certainly wasn't better. This was a pretty big surprise to both of us. The even bigger surprise was the EF-S was VERY noticeably sharper around the edges at 10mm f3.5 vs the L lens at 17mm f4. The sales guy was completely amazed, as he had started off by giving me the usual speech about the superiority of Canon L series lenses. I think our experiment has given him something different to tell his customers!

I still believe there are great reasons to buy L lenses, and someday soon I probably will. But I walked out of there with the EF-S lens, especially considering both were the same price and the 10-22 is markedly wider on my DRebel (no surprise!).

Pros: ultra wide angle capability for APS-C cameras, "L-like" build quality and sharpness

Cons: EF-S designation limits compatible cameras (resulting in half star reduction)

In summary, this lens is my photographic "pride and joy", and it travels everywhere with me.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

47 of 50 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars No excuse not to buy this lens!, February 16, 2006
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
This is one terrific lens! It solves the problem of wide-angle coverage in the 1.6 FOVCF very nicely. As others have pointed out, the mechanical build and optical quality (with 3 Aspherical elements and 1 Super-UD) probably deserve an "L" stamp and a red ring. This lens appears to be of almost identical build, quality and size as the EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM. Even uses the same 77mm filter size as most of the L's. Overall sharpness is excellent, with maybe a little softness towards the corners at 10mm, but I've seen comparisons with other ultra-wide zooms like the Sigma and the Canon blows them away! CA is well controlled too. There is slight Barrel and Pincushion distortions present at the low and high ends, but less than would be expected for a lens this wide. All in all this is one of the best wide-angle zooms available.

The major criticism of this lens usually comes down to; "well, how long will Canon continue to make 1.6 FOVCF cameras?" or "Someday I might upgrade to a Full Frame camera, then what will I do with this lens?" I doubt very seriously that Canon will do away with the APS-C cameras any time soon. My reasoning is that:

1. Canon just came out with the Full Frame 5D at the $3000 price point. Introducing a FF camera to replace the 20D at $1500 would kill the 5D after only a few months.
2. Having the EF-S lens line already established almost guarantees keeping the 1.6 format - mostly because of this lens. To be able to use the EF-S 10-22mm, a chip can't really go any bigger than 1.6 since this seems to be the limit of the useable coverage. Using a 1.5 or 1.4 sensor for example would probably start to introduce significant fall-off at the corners of the larger chip.

As I am writing this, the PMA conference is only four days away. My prediction is that Canon will announce a replacement for the 20D that will, in essence be a 1.6 FOVCF version of the 5D. They will probably increase the (already excellent) density of the 20D's CMOS by shrinking pixel size down to around 5 micron yielding something around the 10 mega-pixel range to compete with the Nikon D200. Maybe they will call the camera the 50D after the 5D since they can't really use the name 30D because D30 was already used.

In any case, my point is that the 1.6 APS-C format will likely be around for some time to come, until the point where the FF price point drops enough to warrant discontinuing the xxD line. Even then, when that happens, doesn't mean you'll throw your 20D in the trash! You'll still want to keep using it and/or sell it, and having this lens will significantly increase its usefulness or resale value.

Now, having said all that, this is the only EF-S lens I plan on buying. From the reviews I've read, the other EF-S lenses are of significantly lesser quality, and all of your other lens needs can be met with standard EF lenses anyway, APS-C or otherwise. Plus you get the option to buy L glass.

So, bottom line is buying this particular EF-S lens for a 20D or XT is a no-brainer. It's the best solution for wide angle in this format. Hesitating to buy it because "I might get a FF camera someday" is also nonsensical. What I might do in the future is just that, for the future. Not buying a mid-priced car today because "someday" I might buy a Ferrari doesn't satisfy my use and enjoyment of the car today!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

31 of 32 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent but expensive ultrawide zoom, May 12, 2009
Gwac (The Dark Side) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
(4.5 of 5 stars)

This was my third lens purchase, after getting the kit lens with my Rebel XS and the 50mm f/1.8. Why did I choose this lens? Well for one, I was suffering from cheap lens syndrome. While I enjoyed the results I was getting from my other lenses, they weren't much fun to work with because of the cheap build quality. More importantly perhaps, I was finding myself at 18mm on my kit lens more than 50% of the time. While I was generally happy with those results, I was disappointed by the barrel distortion, CAs and flare, and wanted something wider that would give me more flexibility.

I read many reviews of the 10-22mm, as well as the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and 11-16mm f/2.8. All were received pretty positively. I didn't consider Sigma or Tamron options because of apparent quality control issues. So why did I pick this one?

1) Focal length/zoom range: As far as focal lengths were concerned, I wanted something that would give me a fair amount of flexibility, since I'm not too keen on switching lenses frequently. At the wide end, it really does help to have a zoom. The 10mm (16mm equiv) setting is pretty extreme and can be useful, but often the intermediate focal lengths (12-17mm) are more appropriate. Furthermore, at 22mm the resulting perspective could be described as "wide-normal" - things still appear pretty natural. Therefore, you get a lens that dabbles with extreme perspective on the wide end while offering a fairly normal perspective on the long end.

Those who are buying the lens purely for the widest setting may be more attracted to the Tokina 11-16, as it gives you nearly an extra stop in maximum aperture and is apparently a bit sharper than the Canon.

2) Distortion: Some have commented that they don't use the 10-16mm range as much because of distortion. I imagine these are the same people who are using the lens as a substitute for backing up. In fact, the Canon offers the lowest amount of optical (barrel) distortion in its class - much smaller than most standard zooms at their widest setting. It is trivial to correct in post-processing. Therefore, I can only assume that the complaints are about the perspective distortion, which is the result of using the ultra-wide focal lengths. This is the whole point of an ultrawide lens!! If you don't want perspective distortion, back up and zoom in! Or if you're looking for parallel lines buy a full frame camera and the $2500 tilt-shift 17mm lens. Problem solved.

3) Handling of flare: This is the single characteristic of this lens that I appreciate the most. Based on samples I've seen of the Tokinas and other 3rd party lenses, the Canon is the hands down winner on managing flare. With this lens it is possible to have the sun directly inside or just outside the frame with very little consequence to the final image. Even when you do manage to get flare in the frame, it is fairly minimal and not very unsightly. This is a very desireable characteristic of an ultrawide lens, since lots of light sources will find their way into your huge field of view. I find myself shooting into the sun even more than I normally would because of it. Another benefit of this characteristic is that there is little incentive to buy or use the bulky lens hood.

4) Chromatic Aberrations: Compared to the Tokinas, this lens has minimal CAs at the wide end that many will be able to live with in their JPEGs. If you want to get rid of them, it is again trivial to do by shooting RAW and post-processing.

5) Light weight: Despite being about the same size, the Canon is lighter compared to the Tokinas (13 oz. vs. 20 oz.). I feel that it is ideally balanced on my small Rebel XS, and therefore appreciate the weight advantage.

6) Colors: Is it just me or does this lens render beautifully saturated colors? Wonderful green trees and gorgeous blue skies.


1) Price: The Canon is significantly more expensive than 3rd party alternatives, which is not unusual. Maybe more annoying, though, is that it is priced similarly to the full-frame equivalent, the 17-40mm L. Basically you're paying the same price for a lens with less glass and poorer build quality (though the build is not bad). As with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 Canon has put "L" glass in a consumer body and charges "L" prices because there's no in-house competition. On the bright side, compared to the Nikon equivalents (12-24mm and 10-24mm), which are around $900, this is cheap.

I got this lens during rebate season, but I would have hesitated to spend more than $700 on it with the good 3rd party alternatives available.

2) Sharpness: I must have had unreasonably high expectations in terms of sharpness. The lens produces excellent micro-contrast at normal viewing sizes (very good for all but the largest prints). However, looking at the images at full size on your monitor will reveal somewhat inferior pixel level detail. The results do respond pretty well to sharpening, though. Sounds like the Tokina 11-16 might be a little better in terms of pixel-level detail, but I wouldn't expect it to be too noticeable. For the best sharpness across the frame I try to keep the aperture between f/5.6 and f/8, and never smaller than f/11. Larger than f/5.6 the center is fine but the edges degrade. The only serious complaint is the extreme corners, but this is typical in almost all wide-angle lenses. In any case, I am of the opinion that sharpness is an over-emphasized lens characteristic. I will take the contrast, handling of flare, bokeh and low distortion of this lens over greater sharpness any day.

3) Vignetting: This is most noticeable wide open at 10mm, but again is fairly easily corrected. Not a big deal to me.

4) Not really a complaint, but a warning: The lens isn't very compatible with the built-in flash except at the longest focal lengths. A lens shadow appears at shorter focal lengths, and the flash is unevenly distributed anyway so the effect is pretty undesirable. Better keep the kit lens around when you want to use flash.

Overall, I'm very happy with this lens. It has more or less displaced my kit lens, as I use my 50mm f/1.8 for any short tele needs. I should note, however, that dealing with wide focal lengths requires a lot more skill as a photographer in almost every respect: composition, selection of aperture, focusing, and metering. This is not a point-and-shoot lens. It is tempting to use the 10mm setting a lot but you will find with time that it does not suit all subjects equally well - Some of my favorite photos were taken at intermediate focal lengths, where the IQ of the lens really shines.

This is a great photographic tool that will challenge you to be more creative. You will get the best results with this lens when you are thinking outside the box. In fact, some of my favorite photos from this lens are when I use it for close-ups. It's not by any means a macro lens, but the perspective distortion as well as the large apparent depth of field can make for some nice close-up shots with the right background. Regardless of the brand, I whole-heartedly recommend a wide-angle zoom to those who enjoy capturing big scenes or getting close to their subjects. It's challenging to use but fun and rewarding.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

22 of 22 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Best wide angle lens for crop sensor Canon shooters., February 6, 2011
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
I owned this lens for about a year, had to sell it and I'm looking to buy it again. The reason is simple, it's the best wide angle lens for crop sensor cameras.

Though I care more about picture quality than build quality (The 50mm F/1.8 mk.ii is the perfect example), the EF-S 10-22 is on par with some L glass I've had. Though the zoom and focus rings are not as damped as the 70-200mm F/4 L IS, they were on par with the 17-40 L, which is already a very nice lens. There is absolutely no wobbling, unlike many other consumer zooms. The lens doesn't extend nor rotate while zooming or focusing. Lens hood is not included, which really is a shame for such a high quality lens. Overall, the only reason why it's not an L lens is because of the EF-S nomenclature, otherwise, based on build alone, it would definitely qualify.

Build quality aside, what about the optics? Well, I used to care much more about the telephoto end than the wide end. I had a 70-200, changed it for the 70-300 DO (another gem), and now I have a 300 prime with a 1.4 extender. So when I first got the 10-22 it was more to test what it could do. After a few outings with it, I realized that my favorite photos tended to be taken with this lens. The quality for such a wide angle lens is absolutely great. The first thing you will notice is how wide it really is. At 10mm, one has to really watch out for the tripod (or your own) feet not to be in the frame. At the same time, in order to get interesting photographs, one needs to be REALLY close to what one is photographing. At 10-12mm, there is significant distortions which aren't very pleasing, but very tolerable. However, from 12 all the way to 22mm it really is outstanding. Pictures are very sharp, and there is a lot of detail to be had.

If you are wondering if then, the 17-40mm may be a better option, let me tell you that it isn't. Under a crop factor, the 17-40 is more of a standard zoom lens, and not a true wide angle. The 7mm focal length difference is huge on the wide end. And both are very close in sharpness terms. As a landscape lens, one will want to stop down to shoot anyway, so the wide open aspect is not that important. I do not feel that the 16-35mm is a viable alternative either for the same reason (I don't need 2.8 aperture, I need a sharp f/8-11 lens), as well as the price difference!

So the lens is the best wide angle option for crop cameras. It is not an easy lens to use, as composition is very important for this focal length. Moving the camera just a couple of inches can dramatically improve a shot. One needs to be close, and really watch out for distortion and the composition. In the end though, once one becomes more proficient, the end results are quite stellar and it becomes a must own lens. Highly recommended!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

21 of 21 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Forget other brands, this is THE wide angle lens at 10mm!!, April 9, 2006
TheTeh (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs (Camera)
I have been thinking/researching about other cheaper ultra wide angle zoom but finally decided to stick to Canon. I amost wanted to buy the Sigma but decided against it after having two other Sigma lenses (30mm and 18-200mm) These two are great lenses, especially the 30mm but one problem is that they have occasional autofocus problem on my Canon 350D. This is understanble because 3rd party lens will never be 100% compatible and you pay for what you get. I am not a Canon brand loyalty and I will buy other 3rd party lenses in the future so don't get me wrong. At this price, I was not going to risk and therefore I bought the Canon 10-22mm instead of the Sigma 10-20mm as good quality ultrawide angle pic is VERY important to me and I do not want to regret.

And, having bought this lens, I thank myself for not trying to save ?100 to get the Sigma. Everything meets my expectation and more. I have used this lens for general walkaround more than my other lenses since acquiring this lens! The field of view is SO wide that if not careful, you will include your feet in the picture!

USing this lens is a whole new experience as careful compositionis required not to create distortion or including things that you do not want to be framed.

Bad points (yes there are some but not on image quality):

-too bulky/big (thank god it is light in weight)

-needs a 77mm filter to protect the front element, this is another sum of money required!

-feels cheap (due to its plasticky feel)

I have some real life samples here to show you if you are interested, they were taken while I was having my holiday in Malaysia last december (2005):

(not all pics taken with this lens, but each photo is indicated with type of lens used)


Hope this helps your decision!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

‹ Previous | 1 230 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

This product

Only search this product's reviews
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.