|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on April 10, 2018 Pros: Field of view, price, focus ring Cons: Low light, materials, loss of sharpness Opinion: Good wide angle, excellent view to the sales price, quality materials quite plasticky, sharpness that goes to fade at longer focal lengths. Great for beginners and for APS-c. Suffers enough flare and the hood is not sold in all products. Post production almost always a must to give a greater harmony to the colors, light and sharpness. |
| sent on April 10, 2018 Pros: Field of view, price, focus ring Cons: Low light, materials, loss of sharpness Opinion: Good wide angle, excellent view to the sales price, quality materials quite plasticky, sharpness that goes to fade at longer focal lengths. Great for beginners and for APS-c. Suffers enough flare and the hood is not sold in all products. Post production almost always a must to give a greater harmony to the colors, light and sharpness. |
  | sent on November 25, 2017 Pros: Weight, construction, color rendering and contrast, hiking, AF, very low distortion, exceptional flare resistance, sharp. Cons: The edges are mainly 10 mm thick, bulky bulky (but very effective). Opinion: For APSC Canon is still the best ultrawide that exists. The hike allows you to keep it full days without forcing you to use it for special shots. The AF is a missile and although it's ultrawide you appreciate it. It's very light and anyone who uses it in the mountains will appreciate it. The color rendering is excellent, very contrasting and gives shots ready. The flare resistance is exaggerated: I tried to snap with the sun in front of the center of the diaphragm and there was only a miserable dot. Distorce little (though something more than 10 mm, as is obvious) but has no strange folds. Probabimente is not the clearest lens in history, but overall sharpness does not lack, though not all over the frame. 10 mm actually loses a bit on the edges, but are secondary areas compared to the subject and I do not consider it a great problem. RnThank you very much because it's fun and useful for daytime landscapes or monuments / architecture photos. I spent months thinking about itSamyang, Tokina, but overall Canon is much more balanced. Who distorts those who do not have AF without giving great quality (and in 2017, in short ...), those who suffer from flare, those who suffer from F / B ... With this you will have fun.rnDefetto: new cost so much and the hood is cumbersome. But effectiveness is guaranteed. |
 | sent on March 07, 2017 Pros: Construction, light weight, range of focal Cons: Suffering to the flare (quite pronounced), not really incisissimo Opinion: I had for a couple of years this lens ke i enjoyed for construction, lightness but also for versatility 'focal offering. As written in the cons and 'a lens ke suffer much flare and lacks incisiveness' in the images while being acceptable not reach the top in terms of native sharpness. I consider it a great glass for those who want to dabble with extreme views (10mm pero 'distortion and' extremely pronounced) and wants something more 'robust and versatile little brother 10-18 STM.rnOra are in possession of 14 mm 2.8 L series II, I think, indeed I am sure, of having found my definitive wide angle. |
 | sent on March 03, 2017 Pros: color quality, sharpness, lightness, easy handling. Cons: Hood sold separately. Opinion: I expressed a vote of 10 votes since there are no means, but in fact I wanted to vote 9.5 because the edges, high openings (3.5-5.6) it does not seem as sharp as the center. From f.8,0 onwards there is no difference. Fast, AF (USM) quiet and reliable even if in a perspective like that serves relatively; often, in fact I put a hand flare for maximum depth of field. |
 | sent on February 10, 2017 Pros: color quality, sharpness, flare resistance, ability to mount filters, lightness. Cons: No one but the lack of weather sealing. Opinion: I had this lens until I replaced it with the counterpart to FF. What can I say except that I have always been in love and still regret it for its light weight, its innate resistance to flare and color rendering true L.rnFosse series was also weather sealed would be the maximum of aps-c.rnLo advice to all those who want a super wide angle for ridotto.rnAlberto format. |
 | sent on February 08, 2017 Pros: Construction, zoom range Cons: Hood part. Opinion: I had this light years fa.rnAll'epoca failed to appreciate what dovuto.rnIn these days reviewing the photos taken at that time I think it is a good goal, (although a bit dark at the edges) much better in the recent 10- 18 Stm (versions that do not appreciate both constructive material for yield) .rnForse a dark little to 22mm (f 5.6) and excellent construction imponente.rnSolido front glass to the touch, rings fluide.rnL 'usm is very valid and preciso.rnIl lens hood is separate but not indispensatore.rnDato I consider it the sole use of APSC rating 9.0. |
  | sent on May 14, 2016 Pros: good range of focal Cons: chromatic aberration, not razor sharp corners, relatively high price Opinion: I bought this wide angle several years ago; at the time there were few wide-angle lenses for APS-C and it was a natural decision, but nowadays I would not recommend. The build quality is good (despite being light and compact) and autofocus, the ring-type USM is quick and quiet; the image quality at the center is good, but in the corners the sharpness is never excellent - even stopping down - and there is a visible chromatic aberration. Spending less you can take the Sigma 10-20 f / 3.5 which has similar image quality but constant aperture of f / 3.5, or the excellent Sigma 8-16, much wider and sharp from corner to corner. Finally, Tokina offers a 11-20 f / 2.8, brighter and sharper the Canon 10-22. I resold after a couple of years to replace it with the Sigma 8-16 that I still use today; if you are looking for a wide angle for APS-C I recommend you assess the suggested alternative Sigma and Tokina. |
 | sent on May 13, 2016 Pros: Central sharpness, quick focus, threading for filters Cons: Hood not included (costs 40 €), poor sharpness at the edges, build quality Opinion: Lens in my opinion mediocre (probably flawed), I found an excellent focus in the center, great colors and excellent contrast but a loss of quality to high edges up to F10 / 11. As owner of the 10-18STM, at least 70D, I prefer the latter. Construction plasticky, bayonet iron but plastic lens (the same of 10-18). For what it costs, I think, it is better to focus on the competition. |
 | sent on January 04, 2016 Pros: excellent resistance to light flare sharp build quality Cons: as always the hood suffers from AC to TA Opinion: after two and a half years of use on 70d I can not be fully satisfied, but lighter in his hand from a nice sturdy feel a series L for aps-crnla favorite thing of all is the high resistance to flare even in difficult situations, TA to suffer a bit of AC but already closed one stop is sharp to the edges and in the landscape and daylight use it often to f8 rnNon I can only vote cosigliarlo 9.5 |
 | sent on December 09, 2015 Pros: Light, crisp, comfortable zoom range and sufficiently bright Cons: Diaphragm "only" 6-blade, not including lens hood and very cumbersome Opinion: Use this lens for almost a year on 70D, got it used with lens hood and I'm really soddisfatto.rnVenivo by a Sigma 8-16 flawed and I think it changed with Canon has been a significant jump in quality and versatilità.rnAdoro travel with a lens Lightweight, with a convenient focal length and with the possibility of mounting a filter nd fun when I want long exposures even giorno.rnL'unica flaw is in my opinion the old 6-blade diaphragm, in fact backlight does a nice sunburst as other wide-angle lenses .rnSarebbe a nice update with new constant aperture diaphragm and ... |
 | sent on August 27, 2015 Pros: Lightweight; Robust; Excellent resistance to flare; not overexpose; sharpness and color that does not regret the L series !!! Cons: nobody! to me the lens hood and 'uncork given standard !!! Opinion: I'm really happy with this' optical. and 'the one I use more' and not an accomplice of my passage to FF !!! the 'EF-S 10-22 and' unottimo grand 'corner that' a lot of satisfaction and 'I was never made to regret his older brother EF 16-35 2.8L that I had the opportunity to try on a FF maintaining the same angle shooting! rnsinceramente if 'I had a FF could not do ammeno a EF16-35mm, but the cost would double and even more' to get a result that would far exceed my EF-S 10-22mm rnconsigliatissimo !!!! for those with a 'APS-C as room and needs a wide angle and pushed quality' without spending much !!!! |
  | sent on March 05, 2015 Pros: sharpness in the center, build quality, af Cons: sharpness and aberration at the edges, no hood, passed in image quality from Sigma 10-20 f / 3.5 Opinion: all in all a good lens, but that requires a closure of the diaphragm at least 7.1 at all focal lengths for sharpness at the edges and a control aberration cromatica.rnin hand returns sense of robustness and build quality. af fast and accurate (dowry in a wide angle is not so essential) .rnleggendo around the Sigma 10-20 f / 3.5 seems to overcome it in IQ |
 | sent on January 17, 2015 Pros: Build quality, color reproduction, sharpness even at the edges, not overexpose ever, resistance to flare, size / weight conteneuti Cons: Hood sold separately I would also expensive Opinion: I purchased this light last year to complete my outfit on Canon 7D and I must say that the performance is very high on par with the series L. Files baked are fantastic for sharpness, color and exposure (high / low lights) not overexpose never frames even under bright lights and except in very special cases the flare is absent. The autofocus is very fast and accurate, but one of its strengths and almost no distortion at 10mm whereas all the other objectives of the competition are not able to achieve the results of Canon.rn Another strength is the sharpness of the edges frame, I would say there is a great loss of definition very acceptable that gradually goes attenuated by increasing the focal length (14mm is already almost absent), the only flaw is the lack of the hood as standard and if by chance you buy l ' Original touches you spend from € 32 to € 40.rnAnche though quite expensive, if you have the budget to buy it I highly recommend it because the market does not exist una lens with this quality apart from the Sigma 8-16 which has excellent performance but insufficient focal length. |
 | sent on October 30, 2014 Pros: building, colors, sharpness Cons: hood sold separately (and expensive) Opinion: After a long discussion chosen as the 10-22 wide angle for my 450d, it was the first lens of "quality" that I bought! It provides crisp, clear images at all focal lengths available. Its 400 grams of weight make it a slow light and easy to carry everywhere for photos of landscapes, architecture, and (why not) reportage.io consider it a bit 'a small 16-35, were it not for the aperture less generous. |
 | sent on October 06, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, weight, color, autofocus, good resistance to flare.rn Cons: In my opinion the only one is the absence of the lens hood Opinion: Delighted former owner of this lens with the 650D which gave me great shots. I am separated very (but very) reluctantly in the transition to FF. Used now stands at a great price. I think his weight is not synonymous with weakness, far from it. In walks a lens with this quality and this weight is a godsend. The shots are very sharp, fantastic colors and also has a good resistance to flare. We loved it! |
 | sent on July 01, 2014 Pros: compact, lightweight, low distortion, vivid colors, fast and silent autofocus Cons: competitors cost a little 'less and offer the hood of the series, but worth the money it costs them all. real defects do not. Opinion: When I tried for the first time this goal, until that day I tried it on my canon 18-55 is the only kit, Sigma 17-70 first version is not stabilized and the canon 18-200 is: all discrete lenses, but the 10-22 made me understand what is the difference between an amateur and a view of a high standard. rnColori brilliant little distortion even at minimum focus, impeccable construction, fast AF ... well, from that moment I realized I had to change also the other lenses I had, because the level of this was clearly superiore.rnCosta enough, but now used is around 400 Euros, and in my opinion there is really tutti.rnè also lightweight, cluttered little more kit lens, and it is a pleasure to take in giro.rnSi should only pay attention: the super wide-angle focal lengths are not "easy"; must us the eye, learn to compose the scene in a whole new way, to avoid making anonymous photo, dispersive, full of details that distract. On the net there are several tutorials to learn how to shoot with such short focal lengths, council to do a search on that. rnAcquisto highly recommended. |
 | sent on June 24, 2014 Pros: Good detail rendition, rich, saturated colors, low distortion. Cons: Chromatic aberration and construction too "light" game with eye-catching dial's focus. Reading the altrernrecensioni discussing "careful construction," I have the impression that the Canon having problems with consistent quality, which was once complained to the universal goals. Opinion: Optically it is certainly a good goal, that is what counts; the construction seems a bit 'hit and miss with RNLA ring focus "dancer" which, while not creating any problem, gives an unpleasant impression of fragilità.rnPenso which will have a formidable competitor in the new Canon 10-18, which seems if they speak well, less expensive and rnsopratutto stabilized; however you think, the stabilizer actually gives a higher gear, even on obiettivirngrandangolari. |
 | sent on June 01, 2014 Pros: SHARPNESS, TINT COLOUR EXCELLENT, distorts LITTLE, GOOD COSTRUZIOE. Cons: USUALLY NOT INCLUDED HOOD AND 'GREAT ... AND COAST Opinion: In principle, it is to buy, I've got to match the canon de 70 bene.Ha I am a good rendition of colors and shots where space is tight and landscapes, I think it is very valid. RnNon is stabilized but not would serve as the pdc is good, it is very well built, solid approaching the series L. .. rn |
 | sent on March 24, 2014 Pros: Solid construction, optical quality, image quality and color saturation, sharpness, resistance to flare, minimal distortion, autofocus, up to 16mm equivalent focal length. Cons: Hood not included, small chromatic aberration at the edges, does not arrive at f/2.8. Opinion: I consider it a great lens, solid, well built and reliable. His only flaws in my opinion are the opening that remains a bit 'standard, it is not affected at all by the fact most of the time this light is intended for landscapes where you close more often, but for a starry heavens f / 2.8 was convenient. Then you have some chromatic aberrations easy to correct, but that may annoy even though they often do not notice. The price is a bit high and annoys not be included even if the lens hood and lens' beautiful but laterally resistant to flare affected. For the rest it is a very good lens that provides excellent color and sharpness enough, we rarely have problems, landscapes shooting will often be satisfactory in all respects and in most 'you Sraa an artistic touch given by the prospects it offers. The USM autofocus and 'almost superfluous as it would stabilize in fact, with this goal, the pdc is often high and the subjects are almost always stationary. I conclude with distortion, even here this lens looks good,In fact, although reaches 10mm (equivalent to 16 to FF) distorts very little although it is expected the tendency toward the fisheye view of the scale, but here and 'minimum and just play a nap with prospects and tilt the lens to have a linear composition, affidabile.rnQuest 'optics in my opinion, is equivalent in performance goals L series |
 | sent on February 03, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, tonal range, color rightly warm range of focal lengths, light, perspective photo Cons: Too bad that is not compatible with FF Opinion: The opinion of a user on a lens is always relative to that he was able to prove and his outfit. Therefore I present my kit: APS-C 550D, 18-55 IS, 28mm F/2.8, 50mm F/1.8 I, 24-105 f / 4, Tamron 28-300. I got the Canon 10-22 used a few months ago and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that these are the best lens I have. It has an impressive sharpness for a APS-C, the better the famed 24-105. Still I'm not sure, but I suspect, however, that the EF-S lenses (like 10-22 or 18-135, for example) are better than EF (as 24-105) on APS-C. In addition, more than the 24-105, has a nice tonal range and management of spectacular lights / shadows. Canon 10-22 fonisce crisp, warm colors, light and shade, balanced, large depth of field and of course a wide-angle perspective, and unmistakably unique. Its focal range makes it suitable to be used as the only lens trips to photograph landscapes, but also close-ups of people on the backgrounds of landscapes. Accepting the typical perspective distortion can also be used per photograph inside buildings, squares and palaces. Well suited to many situations for a trip or a vacation. In environmental portraits expresses a high edge on points of focus extolling the subject well. After your purchase I took the 24-105 to extend the range of focal lengths and shoot without distortion, but the way I photograph I found the latter much lower than the 10-22, which is then often mounted on my camera. |
 | sent on January 13, 2014 Pros: very light, very sharp even at wide apertures, fast autofocus, really minimal distortion. Cons: usually missing hood (took it apart and never used it ...), some aberration in the side of too strong contrasts, does not go on FF ... Opinion: Bought used at a good price and 'optics that I use the most. From landscapes, to street, to portraiture, and 'a' optics which could not more 'help it. It 'amazing how not lead to distortions evident at 10mm, sometimes not even need to correct in post. Aps-c, and 'l' optical recommend with eyes closed. The lens hood that is not 'understand, I retrieved from other suppliers at reasonable prices is not original but honestly I've never used it. Never really felt the need. You can mount filters slim and I have never seen vignetting, ensuring pure fun in the landscapes. |
 | sent on January 08, 2014 Pros: Optical quality, resistance to flare and distortion very controlled. Cons: Construction and equipment at a price that Canon him to propose. Opinion: As already indicated in the pros and cons optical quality is really impressive, it returns the file already practically perfect and clean. Great colors, exceptional resistance to flare and distortions against almost nulle.rnDi the price is high, the building is typical of the area reserved for the lens APS-C and for the price its not negligible for the European market imposed by Canon, we expected at least a accessory (albeit minimal) type lens hood and / or bag where riporlo.rnrnAd However if you find a good offer is a lens to have if you love landscapes and street. |
 | sent on December 22, 2013 Pros: Worth the money it costs. Cons: Hood not included. Opinion: I bought this lens for my 7d and I have to admit that it is ottima.rnPossiede good sharpness, nice color saturation, which are also well contrasted, against the light is no longer a problem, resistance to flare is eccezionale.rnLe distortions and AC. are well controlled and contenute.rnLa construction and typical of 'ef.s, but is overall a lightweight lens that lends itself well to long escursioni.rnPenso it's a great lens, versatile, suitable for landscape Street and also, if desired, some portrait ambientato.rnConsiglio purchase! |
 | sent on November 20, 2013 Pros: Resistance to flare, optical quality, well-controlled distortion. Cons: Hood not included. Opinion: With its focal length range (16-35 equivalent) is a lens firmly focused on the landscape and reportage / street, and in these fields does very well, especially in the countryside where I think it is arguably the best lens also by virtue of the excellent resistance to flare. It really gave me a lot of satisfaction, and still sometimes regret after purchasing of FF 16-35L II that does not always live up to the comparison despite the red ring (in particular in terms of flare). |
 | sent on November 14, 2013 Pros: absence of geometric distortions (focal priority in this type ....) RNAF eccellenternNitidezza! Cons: vignetting (although compatible for the focal length in game) rndotazione poor, no lens hood as standard, no case. Opinion: To me that I often have to deal with architectural photos, this is almost indispensable .... I could appreciate the maneuverability, precision in focus, and a virtual absence of geometric distortion, which will exempt from a long period of post ... the color saturation is at the top, the excellent sharpness, what about if you do not advise ... because in APSC format, the choice non'è wide, but this point of view, does not regret the lack of choice. |
 | sent on May 31, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, good build quality, low distortion, light, saturated colors, excellent resistance to flare Cons: Price, vignetting, sharpness at the edges to fool TA, cromaticaanche aberration in apertures Opinion: this lens is perhaps what I so far has given me the most satisfaction: it's amazing how saturated the colors and this (combined with the focal length interezzante) allows me to rirare out of the shots always particolari.rnl 'only fault I find is that the 'excessive chromatic aberration that remains to be solved by ven to f16/f22 that without too much effort in PP. rnmi sorry this is an EF-S then, in case I decide to switch to FF, I would be forced to venderlo.rnun more detail: obviously the filters that can be SLIM (and therefore a bit 'more expensive) and despite this, mount a polarizer on a 10mm UV makes blacks appear in the frame edges at the corners ... already in 11/12mm comuqnue not ESONO more visible. |
 | sent on March 19, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, flare resistance, low distortion, ability to mount filters, light weight, good sealing of the price used in Cons: Cost from new, lens hood sold separately, slight vignetting at the shorter focal length and maximum aperture. Opinion: It 'a beautiful lens that I used when I had the 7D. He gave me the shots crazy. The construction although not by L-series I can say to be more than good. Despite being plastic I did not notice obvious faults or weaknesses. I've used it in the most varied: near Vernal Fall in Yosemite powder with water, in the Nevada desert, in the snow of the Dolomites. Never made a turn, obviously treated him with care and cleaned / wiped immediately before putting it in your backpack so that I sold at a good price and the lens appeared as nuova.rnMe are very reluctantly had to separate due to passage FF.rnUnico real flaw is a slight vignetting wide open at 10mm but fades until it disappears a little bit the closing with the economic diaframma.rnConfrontato 18-135 18 to 22mm can say to be almost completely free of distortion and have a definition considerably higher along with good saturation colori.rnNon I never felt the need to montarci a polarizer. The heavens that returns this lens are meravigliosi.rnAssolutamente a lens L failure from my point of vista.rn |
 | sent on January 29, 2013 Pros: weight, low distortion, even at the edges. Cons: sharpness, lack of feeling of solidity, price. Opinion: I got this lens after making the sigma 10-20 f4 due to an optical defect that caused me a sharp fitful, basically I had 80% sharper and the rest blurred. Problem that could be observed only in case of an image with everything in focus. In comparison with the sigma, flying over the defect that I hope does not have all the canon is much lighter, but it also gives a feeling of lack of strength, distorts much less, the autofocus is much faster but the sharpness is disappointing, even comparable with sigma. I honestly do not understand how others have been able to put the sharpness of this objective between the pro and I find that it is the only real disappointment. |
 | sent on December 29, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, range of focal lengths interesting reportage (16-35 on FF), the possibility of using filters, light Cons: Price and hood not included Opinion: When I started photography as a hobby I bought a Sigma 10-20 that I sold after less than a year since I soddisfava as surrender. After a good year without a true wide-angle felt, at some reports on commission, the need for a perspective that went under 17 mm. my Canon 17-55.rnLa first idea was to turn to brands like Tamron and Tokina because of the price, maybe a bit 'high, the Canon 10-22, at the end, following one occasion, I was able to buy me this lens. Immediately left me amazed at the incredible lightness that allows you to take it with you without too much trouble. How evidenzaino other, I agree with the assertion that this lens presents excellent images f/8-f/16 then decline a little '(also because of diffraction) to smaller apertures. The interesting thing is that the TA is still usable as long as you do not have to make prints 2 x 3 meters! My opinion is that it is an excellent choice, very useful for those who like the wide screen without having to necessarily throw on a FF. |
 | sent on December 20, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, resistance to flare, color, distortion contained, lightweight. Cons: Price, without the lens hood. Opinion: I own this light now for a year and I can only confirm the good has already been said. That of 10 mm is undoubtedly another perspective, another way of looking at things. I find this lens very clear already at full aperture (f / 3.5 @ 10 mm), but what struck me is definitely the absolute absence of flare in backlit. What certainly catches your eye already seeing the file to display, the contrast and the colors are cool and natural! The distortion is rather limited to the focal species "tele" (20-22mm) while the USM autofocus is quiet and offers the possibility to switch to manual mode at any time. Ultimately, definitely recommend this perspective even if the cost is quite high, ma..come they say, you get what you pay for! |
 | sent on March 16, 2012 Pros: overall balance, light, crisp, great colors, a few aberrations and deforms very little but especially resistance to flare incredible Cons: construction by efs Opinion: great goal, as mentioned with a great balance with spikes of very high quality as exceptional resistance to flare I have not seen in any other optics at this level: you can shoot with the sun lens with no problem. The colors are very beautiful, negligible distortion and aberrations is quite clear from f8 onwards, although not in an excellent manner. The autofocus for what little it takes to those focal is very fast but the construction is a bit plasticky though still strong enough for heavy use outdoors. E 'can also mount filters of all kinds ... too bad it's only for aps |
 | sent on February 12, 2012 Pros: Sharpness value for 'optical / compact / lightweight, low distortion, flare nonexistent, lightning-fast autofocus. Cons: Price, vignetting and a little soft at the edges wide open (10mm). Spangle not beautiful. Opinion: It 's my favorite lens. It was such a great feeling. I chose this and not the sigma 8-16 for two reasons: first, the filters are [that can be mounted on 10-22 (preferably slim not to increase the vignetting)]. The second 'perspective in my opinion very most 'beautiful 10mm canon than exaggerated 8-16 sigma. It 'sa wide multipurpose passing calmly from the edge of the track to landscape photography algli interior. The minimum focal also has a good maximum aperture (3.5) that allows photos notturne.A 10mm just a little 'diaphragmed and' where is best expressed up to 20mm but does not suffer declines visible. Another merit huge and 'the almost total absence of flare. Unique and against 'the price very high in relation to the construction a bit' plasticky (which on the other hand has the advantage of having a lens is extremely light!) If I were to ask for a change in canon would give it a "spangle" lights most 'beautiful (like 16-35)' cause his 6-rays and 'a little' tozza.Consigliatissimo. |
| sent on January 09, 2012 Pros: Sharpness, color rendition Cons: build quality, no hood, high price Opinion: At the end of reading the dozens of threads nausea and evidence of this in mind, I decided to buy used, as the price of the new is very high and not justified. My rating is 8/10, I have to say that I have given more weight to the quality of the lens with respect to the construction quality. The sharpness and surrender I like very much, but the build quality is far from the set L. At the price you pay could do it in metal instead of plastic! |
 | sent on December 30, 2011 Pros: Sharpness, lightness, resistance to flare, ability to mount filters Cons: Price a bit 'high, lens hood sold separately Opinion: I've owned it when I was using the 400D. Then when I bought the 5D MarkII I had to sell it. I must say that when I had to pull me crying my heart. I think it's an excellent lens. Sharp at all focal lengths, excellent resistance to flare, good brightness at minimum focal length allows you to venture even some pictures of starry skies without being pretentious. When I bought the 10mm on APSC represented the minimum focal fisheye not available. Today there is the Sigma 8-16 of APSC that opens a new world. The Canon 10-22 but allows you to mount filters (diameter 77) and is compatible with systems filter plate (Lee, Hitech etc), so it is ideal for those who do not like the double exposure. |
 | sent on September 27, 2011 Pros: Sharp, saturated colors, very usable range of focal lengths, distortion almost nothing, good construction, light weight, excellent resistance to flare (even with the sun in the frame) Cons: Not excellent sharpness at the edges at wide apertures, is expensive. Opinion: It 'a lens that APSC replica of the classic wide-angle zoom for FF 16-35, indispensable in landscape photography. A small apertures (f / 8 and up) is sharp from edge to edge and the best. The colors do not regret the L series and above are well saturated, so as to make sometimes unnecessary use of the polarizer. Someone whispers that the couple APSC +10-22 is better in the picture landscape of the classic 16-35 (or 17-40) on FF. I can definitely say that he does not regret. It has a big rival (the Sigma 10-20) that costs less and seems to have similar performance. I tried the Sigma after I chose the Canon sharper in my opinion, especially at the edges and colors less warm Sigma (which I never liked too). The big advantage of this lens is that you can pick the backlight wildest relying on a flare very low or almost absent. Great, therefore, when used in night shots. A 10 mm has a very low distortion which further reduces the focal more. If you do not like the exasperation of a 8-16 mm wide zoom lens this is the one for you. The only flaw, an excessive cost (but it has a good seal on the market). |
 | sent on September 25, 2011 Pros: Sharpness, good build quality, low distortion, light Cons: Price, excessive vignetting, color is too cold Opinion: The sharpness does not disappoint. E 'instead of disappointing the strong vignetting at 10 mm, and responds well to flare. The situation improves by stopping, then this lens for landscapes gives good results. One problem is the price that would require a better lens for many points of view. I prefer the sigma 10-20 that has a better price has appreciated features. Compared to the Sigma 8-16 however, this Canon is much lower. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
