Equipment Field Report: Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
I was in need of a ultra-wide angle lens for my Canon 40D.
Since migrating back to a 1.6x crop sensor, I became reaquainted with a focal multiplier that made ultra-wide somewhat difficult to achieve. My beloved Canon EF 17-40 f/4 USM was now effectively a 27-64mm. Not terribly dramatic!
Admittedly, I was somewhat reluctant to adopt Canon's new EF-S solution for ultra-wide angle lens design. Something about EF-S suggested cheap and restricted. These lenses were known for liberal use of plastic and could be mounted only on EOS D and Rebel series bodies.
Unfortunately, my alternative was to select a third party lens that would get me my desired focal range.
After much deliberation, I narrowed down my search to two lenses:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM
Ironically, these lenses are priced exactly the same. So, I wanted to know which would provide the most bang for the buck.
A simple comparison of things that matter to me.
| EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM |
Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM |
|
|
| wider on my 40D, but EF-S restricted |
not quite as wide, but full-frame compatible |
| lighter at 385g |
heavier at 600g |
| faster at f/3.5-4.5 |
slower at f/4.5-5.6 |
| inner USM focusing and zooming |
inner HSM focusing and zooming |
| uses same hood as my 17-40 f/4 |
hood is incorporated |
At this point, I was leaning towards the Canon for a couple of reasons. I prefer Canon's USM over Sigma's HSM. My Sigma 500mm f/4.5 HSM is very quick to focus, but it's a four-thousand dollar lens. Generally, I've found my Canon USM lenses to outpace my Sigma HSM lenses. Additionally, I'd been hearing wonderful things about the overall image quality delivered by the Canon. In contrast, I had heard that copies of the Sigma lens varied greatly from excellent to downright bad.
The weight of the Canon was interesting to me. I don't mind carrying heavy gear in my current state of health. However, this lens would be going up into the mountains with me, for sure. It would be nice to have a light ultra-wide angle lens. Plus, I already own a compatible lens hood (EW-83E) for my 17-40 f/4. That would mean one less lens hood to pack. I don't know about you, but I find lens hoods to be one of the most annoying items to stow.
Lens speed didn't matter all that much to me. It would be nice to have a faster lens, but I do most of my landscape work with a tripod. Sure, keeping exposure times shorter results in less noise. I didn't feel that it would be critical here.
Still leaning towards the Canon, I went to a local camera shop and held both lenses in my hand. I mounted each on my camera and walked around the store.
I was pleasantly surprised with the Canon lens. It was light and mostly plastic, but it did not feel cheap. It was quick to focus, smooth to zoom, and provided full-time manual focus. In particular, the zoom and focus rings provided plesant, smooth response; something I really hadn't expected.
The Sigma really was a beast of a lens. It was quite large and heavy. The HSM was snappy enough, so no complaints there. In retrospect, I guess I should consider how much manual focusing I do when shooting landscapes, but fast and full-time autofocus are nice to have. The fixed lens hood really put me off. I simply didn't like it. It felt vulnerable in my bag. Finally, the finish didn't feel as nice as that of the Canon. I've never really been fond of Sigma's choice in finishing material. It has been known to wear off when subjected to rain. Sorry, Sigma!
I chose the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM and never looked back.
Will it stay in my pack? Abosutely. Here's why.
- It's so light! It's not tiny, but it sure doesn't weigh much. A lens suitable for backpacking.
- The build quality, though mostly plastic, is very good. Completely unexpected! No weather sealing... oh well.
- Autofocus is snappy and silent. Zooming is quite smooth. Full-time focusing is nice to have.
- Lens speed is perfectly adequate for landscape work. I find this focal length is easy to handhold, even in low light.
- Overall image quality is excellent! A huge surprise! Canon did a wonderful job of controlling distortion and flare. Corner sharpness becomes very good as the lens is stopped down. Wide open, it is a tad soft in the corners, but still very acceptable. Sharpness in the center is excellent. Vignetting, wide open, is acceptable for a lens of this focal length. Color rendition and contrast is just great.
An image from the field.
JFP-021708-8178 - Canon 40D, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM @ 15mm, 1/60 @ f/8, ISO 400
In summary.
This lens is fun to use! It provides the dramatic perspective sought after when making landscape images. The results I get from this lens are downright impressive. I find myself shooting it alongside my Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM to cover an effective focal range of 16-112mm. I am able to save pack space and weight for those times when travelling light is desirable. I enjoy having this lens in my bag and find myself using it more and more frequently. I do have three gripes.
- The pricetag of 689.00 USD that I paid seemed a tad high for an EF-S lens.
- Canon. Expensive lens hoods! Seriously... just include the damn thing.
- If I do purchase a 1 series body, then this lens will no longer have a place in my bag. Rather unfortunate!
Jamie, JFP
|
|
