Canon 10-22mm

giantwolf

giantwolf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
451
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I'm after some advice if I may? I have been lucky enough to get some cash for my birthday and have wanted, for some time, a Canon 10-22mm wide angle lens. However, now the time has come to part with the cash I'm beginning to wonder how much difference I'd see between that and my current widest lens 18-55mm kit lens. Now clearly the 10-22 is a much better lens than the kit lens but I'm interested in how much more width the UWA actually gives me over the 18mm on my kit lens for landscapes. If anyone has any examples of the same scene shot at 10/12mm vs 18/20mm that would be much appreciated.

My other option (if there isn't much difference between the 10-22 and the 18-55) would be to upgrade my kit lens to a 17-55 f2.8.

Any thoughts much appreciated.
 
You will see a considerable difference, becomes very noticeable as the focal length decreases, have to watch out you don't include your feet in the shot

I have the 10-22mm and a 17-55mm, not being facetious now, but so many people wouldn't spend the money if the difference was negligible

Also a good idea to get the hood for it, can get flare problems without it and offers some protection too (cheeky sods not including it at the price, same goes for the 17-55mm too)
 
Last edited:
I guess the answer is... how many times when you go out taking photos of landscapes do you wish you had a bit more width. If it's above 50% then you need the 10-22.
 
It's massively wider than the kit lens.
 
I've just noticed you're still on your kit lens. While the kit lens isn't terrible, by the same token it isn't all that good

So I guess your choices are..
1. Spend heap of money on 10-22
2. Spend heap of money on 17-55
3. Split heap of money into two piles and get the Sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 17-50.

If I had mountain of money, I'd get both the Canon lenses :lol:
 
tijuana taxi said:
You will see a considerable difference, becomes very noticeable as the focal length decreases, have to watch out you don't include your feet in the shot

I have the 10-22mm and a 17-55mm, not being facetious now, but so many people wouldn't spend the money if the difference was negligible
Also a good idea to get the hood for it, can get flare problems without it and offers some protection too (cheeky sods not including it at the price, same goes for the 17-55mm too)
Click to expand...

fair point, thanks!

arad85 said:
The answer is a LOT wider (107 deg vs 74). Take a look here: http://www.tamron.eu/en/lenses/focal-length-comparison.html
Click to expand...

thanks for the link... very useful

lazer chikkin said:
I guess the answer is... how many times when you go out taking photos of landscapes do you wish you had a bit more width. If it's above 50% then you need the 10-22.
Click to expand...

good question - don't get to do much landscape stuff at the mo, but looking to do loads more, hence the possible purchase.

odd jim said:
It's massively wider than the kit lens.
Click to expand...

thanks

lazer chikkin said:
I've just noticed you're still on your kit lens. While the kit lens isn't terrible, by the same token it isn't all that good

So I guess your choices are..
1. Spend heap of money on 10-22
2. Spend heap of money on 17-55
3. Split heap of money into two piles and get the Sigma 10-20 and the Tamron 17-50.

If I had mountain of money, I'd get both the Canon lenses :lol:
Click to expand...

Thanks, yeah, I mentioned the 17-55 in my OP as another possible - definitely not in the market for both though (well, not at the same time anyway!)
 
If you intend taking more landscapes make sure you get (apologies if you already have) a decent tripod/head and a remote shutter release, makes all the difference for the long exposures and small apertures you will be using
 
tijuana taxi said:
If you intend taking more landscapes make sure you get (apologies if you already have) a decent tripod/head and a remote shutter release, makes all the difference for the long exposures and small apertures you will be using
Click to expand...

Rich, yep thanks for that - already have a tripod and remote.
 
Thought you probably did have Richard, but the remote especially can easily be overlooked, look forward to seeing some of your photos
 
I have 10-22 and 17-55. They are totally different and I love them equally, although the 17-55 is on my camera 90% of the time.
 
Hi, I'm looking at wide angle lenses as well. Fancy the Canon 10-22, but wondering if this is the best choice?
Opinions appreciated....

Neil
 
I used to have the 17-85mm which I used for a number of years for wide angle shots. I would say most of the it did the job. Have a look at http://WWW.dinionline.com there are a lot of shots taken at 17mm.

I have now replaced that lens with a 15-85 which gives me both the wide angle and the walkabout lens together.
 
There definitely is a big difference between 17 and 10. I'm also considering this lens, but I'm also looking at the 17-40L lens. I currently have a 15-85 which is a great lens but I don't use it much! (dont know why, I guess it might be because I got used to using my primes, so might sell) but if you are considering upgrading from the kit lens I'd suggest the 15-85 as it gives a wider angle than 17 and also more zoom, and is roughly in the same price range.
 
15mm and 10mm is two different worlds. The 10-22 gives you many creative options. I love it. It is also light and quite small.
 
dubcat said:
15mm and 10mm is two different worlds. The 10-22 gives you many creative options. I love it. It is also light and quite small.
Click to expand...

Agree with every word.

I own both the 10-22 and the Tokina 11-16. For general outdoor use the Canon is easily the better choice.
 
Thanks for the info, looks like the 10-22 Canon will be in my kit bag soon.
 
Someone needs to pos that superb link about using a wide angle lens.

IMO its not just for getting it all in, but its for putting the viewer right in the photo, up close and personal. Of course it does work well for 'getting it all in' but remember not to just fill the space with boring extra bits.

Anyway I'd definitley get it, you'll use it tons at first and then probably use it more as and when needed but its a range you will not want to be without in the long run.
 
shabba said:
Someone needs to pos that superb link about using a wide angle lens.

IMO its not just for getting it all in, but its for putting the viewer right in the photo, up close and personal. Of course it does work well for 'getting it all in' but remember not to just fill the space with boring extra bits.

Anyway I'd definitley get it, you'll use it tons at first and then probably use it more as and when needed but its a range you will not want to be without in the long run.
Click to expand...

Really good point - i wish i had the link to that site. Wide angle is as much about getting close to your subject as it is about getting everything. I should practice what I preach. Tried to find you a good example from my own photo's but couldn't find any!
 
New York was designed for the 10-22!
 
How about ultra wide for birdlife.
This was about a foot away
132775802.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top