# Is this a good lens? (Canon EF-S 10mm - 22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM)



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

As the title says, is this a good lens for taking landscape and building photos?


----------



## kjboyd (Apr 13, 2006)

not really. the 10mm will give you wildly distorted lines and angles on buildings. not something you normally want with building shots. the 22 is a little better. I'm guessing you have a Rebel Digital or 30D? you also have to add in the 1.6x factor, so that 10 becomes a 16 and the 22 becomes a 35. I'd suggest the 17-85 Canon lens or the sigma 17-70, which I shoot on my 30D and love.
kev

here are some shots with the 17-70 and a 10-20 (the Duomo).


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=312255


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

kjboyd said:


> not really. the 10mm will give you wildly distorted lines and angles on buildings. not something you normally want with building shots. the 22 is a little better. I'm guessing you have a Rebel Digital or 30D? you also have to add in the 1.6x factor, so that 10 becomes a 16 and the 22 becomes a 35. I'd suggest the 17-85 Canon lens or the sigma 17-70, which I shoot on my 30D and love.
> kev
> 
> here are some shots with the 17-70 and a 10-20 (the Duomo).


I actually have the 40D. Will that lens that I mentioned not work with the 40D? What about the 10mm for landscape photos? Would it still be OK or would the 17-85mm be a good lens to cover both landscape and buildings? Thanks for the information! Those are some great photos as well!


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

HW said:


> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=312255


Thanks for the link.


----------



## kjboyd (Apr 13, 2006)

oh yeah, any Canon lens will work with the Eos digital family. But if you had to have only one general lens, I'd do the 17-85 or the 17-70. The 10-20 will get old really quick (I mean its fun factor will wear off). I was plenty happy with the 17 end on my sigma.



chicagofan00 said:


> I actually have the 40D. Will that lens that I mentioned not work with the 40D? What about the 10mm for landscape photos? Would it still be OK or would the 17-85mm be a good lens to cover both landscape and buildings? Thanks for the information! Those are some great photos as well!


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

kjboyd said:


> oh yeah, any Canon lens will work with the Eos digital family. But if you had to have only one general lens, I'd do the 17-85 or the 17-70. The 10-20 will get old really quick (I mean its fun factor will wear off). I was plenty happy with the 17 end on my sigma.


I've only shot with a 17-85 once, but in my experience, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is way sharper and produces much warmer images than the Canon. The price is very reasonable too.


----------



## dadtorbn (Oct 3, 2003)

Also try here for lens reviews: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

We have an EFS17-85mm lens. It's "IS" so it can gather a nonblurry image in conditions where a piece of glass at it's speed could not possibly function. It's a useful walk around lens for gathering okay images. However, for some reason it's accurate representation of color under moderately low light pales in comparison to my 1.4f 50mm prime. I'm now eying L-glass.


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

One thing that I did forget to mention was the fact that I do already have a 28-135mm lens that came with my 40D, so wouldn't buying the 17-85mm lens be kind of overlapping to my 28-135mm? The 10-22mm would then cover the focal ranges that I am not getting now, correct? Hell I maybe way off on all of this as I am still very new to all of this!


----------



## jcatral14 (Aug 4, 2003)

How about the 17-40/4 L?


----------



## jman103099 (Jun 10, 2006)

:thumbup: I love my Sigma 17-70... it's my everyday walk around lens. I would say give it a shot - cant beat the price!


----------



## kjboyd (Apr 13, 2006)

If you already have the 28-135 then yes, the 17-70 18-85 would be a waste. You might want to consider a fixed lens like a 15mm and use that wen you need the extra wide angle. save your money and buy a nice f1.2 lens or so. =)

you should check out http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3242&navigator=1

and

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907

and

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7321


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

Thanks for the links and the information. I will be checking out the links later on tonight or tomorrow when I get some extra free time!


----------



## zoltrix (Mar 14, 2007)

That's a good lens but subjects close to you will be distorted. That's ok because the lens is designed for expansive landscapes.

Also, that lens is old, it's been around forever. There's a crop of new lenses coming out that will rival this one.

Specifically, Tokina 11-18mm f/2.8. The Tokina has been getting good reviews but it's impossible to find at the moment. Sold out everywhere. Tamron is also got one coming soon.


----------



## uofmtiger (Sep 25, 2005)

I have had the 10-22 for a while and it always gets a spot in my bag even when I am traveling light. I have several lenses and this one covers a range that my other lenses don't cover. Unless you get within a few inches of your subject, you will not get all that much distortion. I was about a foot away in the shot below (it is not distorted, his tongue is that big) ;-):










Unfortunately, I am pretty lazy about updating my lens photo galleries, but the link to my gallery below may help you with a decision:

10-22mm

Personally, I would not be without this lens. The Tokina was out when I bought mine, but I felt more comfortable getting the Canon. There are places on the net that compare them and show the distortion of each lens on a graph.


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

Thanks for the sample photo. I like the other pictures in your gallery as well!


----------



## uofmtiger (Sep 25, 2005)

chicagofan00 said:


> I like the other pictures in your gallery as well!


Thanks. With the crop factor on my lens, I wanted the widest lens I could find. I have not posted many of my photos lately which explains why the gallery does not have a lot of photos in it. Even though I got it a while back, it is one of my newest lenses.

My dad has a 17-55 f2.8 IS USM that I used for a week or two. It is a faster lens and that may come in handy if you shoot in low light. However, I would miss the extra width that you get with the 10-22mm. He has both in his bag, so he obviously feels the same way about it.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 5, 2006)

jcatral14 said:


> How about the 17-40/4 L?


I have this lens but the extra 7mm does make a dramatic impact on what you can 'see' in UWA. It is a GOOD lens and if you follow the link above to POTN you will see what you can do with it. Some will complain it is a bit soft on the 10mm end but go up to 12mm(still 5mm wider that the 17-55 or 17-40 recommended) and it is great. It is also great on 10mm

It is a VERY fun lens!

Need to add a 40D to my bag


----------

