canon 10-22.

fbuk · 2 Apr 2007 at 19:39

Just a quick question regarding the Canon 10-22

With the rebates now fully underway, works out £360 (£410 - £50) , compared to the Sigma 10-20 price £289. Is the canon worth the extra £71 difference.?

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 2 Apr 2007 at 19:55

fbuk said:
Just a quick question regarding the Canon 10-22

With the rebates now fully underway, works out £360 (£410 - £50) , compared to the Sigma 10-20 price £289. Is the canon worth the extra £71 difference.?

Im gonna start yet more controversy but the Canon 10 - 22 is worth 200 quid more than the sigma.

After reading its write up pitched agaisnt the Canon I decided to get the Canon.

The Sigma is a very able lens in most conditions but I felt that the Canons contrast and color output were better than the Sigmas but more importantly its control over flare.

Sleepyd · 2 Apr 2007 at 19:59

^ What he said

yak.h'cir · 2 Apr 2007 at 20:10

The canon is a much better lens, but the sigma is still very good.

fbuk · 2 Apr 2007 at 20:48

thanks

I think i have my answer, thanks guys

Sleepyd · 2 Apr 2007 at 20:52

Fstop11 said:
Control over flare.

I've been impressed by this aspect as well, hardly any flare to speak of

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 2 Apr 2007 at 21:05

Fast AF, USM.

Better than average build.

Great performance speaking of which, nice shot sleepyd.

fbuk · 2 Apr 2007 at 21:17

is it true

I read somewhere, that even though it doesnt have L lettering, it still using L quality glass, is this true?, also is it worth getting the lens hood?

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 2 Apr 2007 at 21:36

fbuk said:
I read somewhere, that even though it doesnt have L lettering, it still using L quality glass, is this true?, also is it worth getting the lens hood?

Yes get the lens hood for this. Its an EFs lens so it will be using the full element of the design since this breed of lens is designed for those with a 1.6x crop. You can usually get away with not using lens hoods as much with EF mounts on cropped bodies but this lens really does need its hood. If you already own the 17 - 40 L F4. It is the same hood for the 10 - 22.

Nazbit · 2 Apr 2007 at 22:22

The canon 10-22 is an excellent lens. I've heard it described as the only L lens never to get the badge.

It has similar build quality to my 24-105L and I'm very impressed with this lens so far. I have not invested in the lens hood yet, (Although I will do very soon) and I have to say, I haven't really needed it.

Rumor has it that canon had issues with giving the 10-22 the L badge with is being an EF-S mount lens. I.e. it would then be classed a pro lens but wouldn't be compatible with the canon pro DSLRs.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 2 Apr 2007 at 22:38

Nazbit said:
Rumor has it that canon had issues with giving the 10-22 the L badge with is being an EF-S mount lens. I.e. it would then be classed a pro lens but wouldn't be compatible with the canon pro DSLRs.

That is pretty much it. And less than L quality build. IQ is fantastic.

J1234 · 2 Apr 2007 at 23:06

Nice, I might have to invest in this or the 10-20mm sigma.

Tachyon · 12 Apr 2007 at 00:38

fbuk said:
Just a quick question regarding the Canon 10-22

With the rebates now fully underway, works out £360 (£410 - £50) , compared to the Sigma 10-20 price £289. Is the canon worth the extra £71 difference.?

Had been looking at this lens myself. Is the £410 a UK price or is that imported. Cheapest I could find it in the UK was £409 & that was inc. rebate. Not asking for competitors etc.., just wondering if you could confirm the price you quoted was UK stock as I was wondering if the rebate would work on an imported lens.

dunker · 12 Apr 2007 at 02:03

what about the Tokina 12-24 i have this on my wishlist should i remove it for the sigma or the canon?

robmiller · 12 Apr 2007 at 03:13

Fstop11 said:
Im gonna start yet more controversy but the Canon 10 - 22 is worth 200 quid more than the sigma.

I don't think you're going to cause any controversy, I think that's pretty much everyone's opinion.

The Sigma only really makes sense for Nikon users, IMO, since the Nikon 12-24mm is £750 and not even as good as the Canon 10-22mm (i.e. it's not worth the price increase over the Sigma, whereas the Canon 10-22mm is). If I owned a Canon I wouldn't hesitate in saving for the Canon 10-22mm.

fbuk · 12 Apr 2007 at 06:05

re:

sent you a email regarding the price i found

, £410 brand new

even looking around for second hand it seems as though this lens certainly holds it price, not sure if sigma variant holds much resell value.

Tachyon · 12 Apr 2007 at 07:52

fbuk said:
sent you a email regarding the price i found , £410 brand new

even looking around for second hand it seems as though this lens certainly holds it price, not sure if sigma variant holds much resell value.

Thanks fbuk, appreciated. I wasn't sure if the rebates would work with that particluar seller but I just had a browse on the POTN forums & others have confirmed that the rebates do indeed work. So the £350 you originally posted stands, nice one.

Thanks.

Psilonaught · 12 Apr 2007 at 13:38

fbuk said:
I read somewhere, that even though it doesnt have L lettering, it still using L quality glass, is this true?, also is it worth getting the lens hood?

i have to say no - i own both this and a 24-105 and TBH the little 10-22 is not as sharp

FranchiseJuan · 12 Apr 2007 at 13:44

If you have a look at the lens groupings diagram for the 10-22 and compare it to the one for the 16-35 F2.8 (MK1), they are very similar (almost identical).

SDK^ · 12 Apr 2007 at 14:54

A lot of lenses these days are described as 'L lens quality' without the red reing - Canon 28-135, Canon 100mm macro, Canon 10-22 yada, yada.... :rolleyes:

An L lens is a far more than just sharp optics. They generally have a constant aperture, weather sealing, a decent size manual focus ring, rugged build and UD or Fluorite glass elements.

The Canon 10-22 doesn't have weather sealing, the build quality is cheap and the manual focus ring is rubbish in comparison to the one on the 17-40L.

What also gets me is EF-S lenses are supposed to cheaper than EF lenses because they are smaller and use less glass but the 10-22 is more expensive than the 17-40 and it doesn't come with a lens hood or bag. :confused:

Sure; photos from the 10-22 compare well to those taken using a 17-40 but it's no L lens.