Canon 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 am not a professional photographer; a beginner to rank amateur at best. This is the first real lens I have ever owned and I use it on a Canon T5i I purchased last year, my first DSLR. I take about 250-300 pictures a week as part of my profession so a dependable camera body and lens are crucial. This lens delivers a noticeably superior picture quality compared to what I was getting out of the kit lens that came with the T5i and especially compared to the picture quality from my old Canon PowerShot, which was respectable. The colors are vivid and not as flat; the focus is sharper. The wide angle functionality enables me to photograph small areas realistically and I don't particularly notice the barrel distortion until about 13 to 10 mm. That's awesome as I only use such a short focal length in the smallest of spaces; for interior photography I usually play in the 14 to 18 mm range and longer for outdoor photography. This lens is not an uncap and shoot; there is a learning curve. It's taken me over a month just to become comfortable with it. You can always cheat and use the camera's auto setting but you're really missing out. I am having so much fun with this lens I actually look forward to going to work. And I've learned more about photograph with this lens than ever before. There was one problem. The autofocus malfunctioned after about a month of steady use and I had to drop off the lens to a canon service center in my town. Within two weeks Canon returned the lens with a brand new autofocus motor in it. It works like a charm again. I hope it is fixed for good. I have read elsewhere that the autofocus on this particular lens has been a problem for others. Maybe I should learn how to manual focus and use the autofocus less. Some advice: this is a heavy lens and bigger than you think. Ditch the neck strap and grab a hand strap.

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.

This lens has a TON of reviews... so I'll stick to a short couple of lists/facts. These are all from my PERSONAL experience with my particular lens, and in no way is an attempt to regurgitate over used buzz words or other peoples "facts". What's hot? * Sharp Optics (Surprisingly so. Better than my Canon 28-135mm IS USM and Tamron 70-300mm at their best) * Full-time manual focus override * Super wide angle to ~almost~ "normal" on a ASP-C (cropped) sensor * Smooth operation, good fit and finish. Not a metal barrel, but still feels solid * Good contrast * Handles distortion VERY well when zoomed all the way out (though it's still there, as is to be expected from something that gets THIS wide) * Will hold it's value, even used * Good, minimal focus distance What's not? * Chromatic aberration rears it's ugly head when wide open and kicking it around 10mm's. I hear it's better than most the other choices in this range, but it's still more than I'm a fan of. (This can be, mostly, compensated for by zooming in to about 12mm's, or stopping down a little more.) * Not "weather sealed". I personally haven't had any issues, but when I go hunting for an epic landscape shot, I shy away sometimes if the weather is particularly rainy because while my 7D can take it... my lens might not be so lucky. * Pricey * Won't stay with me if I go "Full Frame" (EF-S mount) * Without IS or F/2.8, it's usable, but not ideal for low-light shots with subject movement or no tripod. (Usable, but not ideal) Final Word: If you're running an ASP-C sized sensor on your Canon Rebel, xxD, or 7D and you're looking for "real" super wide angle shots, there aren't many choices to be had. BUT... when you have to pull the trigger, I highly recommend this lens and would purchase it again if I had too. If you do not need quite as wide a shot, as much usable range, shoot in lower light, and looking to save about $100... I'd go with a Tokina 11-16mm. I hear it's supposed to be pretty good as well... but I have no personal experience with it. You win some and lose some either way... but my final word is... the Canon 10-22mm is tough to beat. Buy it, be amazed. I know I was.

This is my favorite lens I use for my Canon EOS R10. I have to use the EFS-EOS Mount adapter for my camera with it which not a problem at all. If you look at my pictures you can see the difference from how much of the room the lens picks up vs my phone camera. Even in portrait it captures more of the room. It feels really nice, looks really nice and it has a big ol lens and the auto focus makes nice mechanical noises and the zoom is pretty decent too. I really like it and the price is pretty good for what it is.

I cannot say enough positive things about Canon's 10-22mm. I bought mine in November 2010 and it's probably been my most used lens. (Now I should mention I only use three lenses: Canon 50mm f/1.8 , Canon 100mm f/2.8L and this 10-22mm. Well I also have a Lensbaby Composer but that doesn't count hahah) The 20-22mm is a well-built lens. It has a Super UD (Ultra-low Dispersion) element. Dispersion causes color fringes on the edges of subjects, often referred to as chromatic aberration (CA). Super UD has characteristics similar to fluorite lens elements. Super UD is found only in a few Canon's lenses such as the 400mm 5.6 L. The 10-22 is also a very light lens; hardly notice it on my 7D . This is a very veratile lens. At 22mm it's a 35mm equivalent, which happens to be one of my favorite focal lengths. What can I say, I'm a minimalist :) On the 10mm end it's just a lot of fun. Everything is in the shot. Everything! lol There's very little edge distortion at the edges imo; I've never bothered correcting for it. Obviously when at 10mm then you want to keep subjects away from the edges, especially tall buildings and people. However, sometimes I like to purposely exploit the edge distortion; it can impart cool effects when used creatively. I wish it was constant aperture. That's really my only gripe, and it's a minor one. Speaking of aperture, I've read people complaining about it being "slow" and not good in low light. Baloney. Check my Flickr stream. I use it indoors all the time, bowling alleys, clubs, restaurants...I've used it at night on countless occasions. That's what higher ISOs are for. I met a guy who shoots in night clubs for a living -- and he was using this lens. It's good stuff! As of February 2012 it's currently over 800. That's a bit spendy. Maybe wait until summer.

A few years ago we went to Ireland (shooting with a Canon G9) and I was constantly frustrated by my inability to capture the *hugeness* of many indoor churches or outdoor castles to convey how immense a lot of what we were seeing was. Time and time again, at 24mm, it just wasn't wide enough for me to back into the corner of a building and capture the full scope of what we were seeing. I decided then and there that when I got a DSLR I was going to fix that issue. Fast forward a few years and I got a Canon 60D for Christmas. In preparation for a trip to Greece (picture added to sample images) I hummed and hawed about getting the 10-22 because I was worried, even on a crop-sensor, that it would be TOO wide. I was debating spending the $700 on this 10-22 lens or spending $1500 on the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens lens. A friend had picked up the 16-35 and said it was excellent; a perfect walk-around lens and that he never had an issue with it "not being wide enough". Anyway, due to cost I decided to get the 10-22 and have to say that was the BEST decision I made for the Greece trip. There are an innumerable number of shots (1300 in total) that I took on that trip, capturing hillside towns, the Parthenon or ancient ruins that would have been impossible with anything narrower. At 10mm on a crop-sensor like the 60D, that gives me an effective 16mm focal point and time and time again I was *so happy* the lens would go that wide when shooting inside a church or ruined building. The slight bending of perspective at really wide angles was a *good* thing I though; I don't mind it, I think it's artistic and helps give a "woooAAAA that is big" impression to friends and family viewing our pictures and trying to understand just how huge these ruins were. Since getting back I actually ended up buying the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II USM after all and have to say that it is "wide enough" for most every day use, but for Greece, I would take the 10-22 again over the 16-35 any day because those extra 6mm make a big difference. If you are like me and trying to shoot huge things and capture them all in-frame, get the 10-22 and know you have an awesome lens. If you are looking for the perfect walk-around lens, grab the 16-35 or just use the kit 18-135... that is actually a fantastic walk-around lens and won't send you to the poor house. Hope the comparison of the two most popular lenses helped, because I was humming and hawing so long about that choice that I was happy when I finally made it!

Great price for a fabulous USM lens especially if you have an older version of a DSLR like I do. The shopping was seamless, arrived on DHL from Hong Kong on time (I recommend using the express shipping option).

Contento por la compra.

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

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

I really love this lens, it was my second lens purchased for my 40D after a 40mm prime. The reviews on this 10-22 were instrumental in deciding this was the wide angle I wanted. It’s great for capturing dramatic landscapes and is great at getting distance from a subject when you need it.