EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens for EOS Digital SLRs

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!

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!

I live in NYC and have been shooting with this lens for over three years, most recently on a Canon 70D. I've found it invaluable for architecture in the City and landscape photography - it is my walk around lens. The lens is well made and has withstood many bumps and bruises while hiking with the camera clipped to my chest. It survived a fall when my tripod tipped over, the only damage was a broken ND filter. I've been happy with the sharpness and contrast. I wouldn't say the lens has any cons if you understand the limitations inherent to an ultra wide lens. This lens is rectilinear and does an excellent job controlling distortion. At 10 mm there is elongation at the edges of the frame, pin cushion and perspective distortion. Keeping the camera level will minimize this and pin cushion can be corrected in Lightroom. While taking group shots, it's important to zoom in to at least 12-14mm or frame the picture so people aren't at the edges. The lens is a bit more prone to flare, which can usually be avoided by changing your framing. It's also suffers from more CA than my other lenses, but this is also easily corrected in Lightroom. At 22mm (35mm full frame) there is no distortion and I've found it to be the perfect length for shooting panoramas in portrait orientation. Overall I've learned that 10mm shouldn't be used often for traditional landscapes, unless you're using it to emphasize something in the foreground. The utrawide 10mm is much better indoors in places like cathedrals and the like - in fact sometimes I wish it was a bit wider in these circumstances. Overall, I love this lens and its my most used by far. Hopefully this review will help some folks shooting with it. The only downside is that I'll have to buy the 16-35mm L if I ever switch to full frame.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM SLR Lens is a game-changer for my photography. Its wide-angle capabilities allow me to capture stunning landscapes and Astrophotography details with exceptional clarity. The autofocus is fast and precise, ensuring sharp images, while the f/3.5-4.5 aperture range provides versatility in various lighting conditions. This lens is a must-have for any EOS Digital SLR user seeking to elevate their creative potential. Simply put, it's a masterpiece!

Contento por la compra.

Muy bien embalado muy correcto el trato del vendedor y en un tiempo muy aceptable

説明通りの商品でした。ありがとうございます。

In sintesi: PRO: distorsione minima - super resistenza a flare e ghosting - ben costruito e piacevole da usare - AF molto veloce - nitidezza zona centrale molto elevata CONTRO: nitidezza ai bordi da scarsa (aperture più ampie) a sufficiente (a f/11), tanto da farmi pensare di essermi imbattuto in una copia difettosa - aberrazione cromatica piuttosto evidente - costo secondo me esagerato per le prestazioni che offre. In ogni caso ho restituito la lente non essendo soddisfatto della nitidezza