EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 verse EF 16-35 f/2.8L II optical quality

[contrastny]

Thanks for all of the comments. I think I'm going to get the 10-22 just after the holidays.

Additionally, all of my round filters will fit this lens as I bought them larger, in case I ever got this lens. I just use an adapter ring when they are being used on my 15-85mm.

[Edwin Herdman]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a highly regarded optic.

The extra 1mm you gain on the wide end is going to help less than going with the extra many mm on the tele end of the 17-55mm.  APS-C bodies keep getting better, and while FF certainly has its advantages, the evidence seems to be that the EF-s wide to standard 17-55mm is as good as the FF offerings, and in fact better much of the time.  It's not weather sealed if you need that, but it does have a wider range...and IS. 

I guess because the OP already mentioned having an EF-S 15-85mm lens, and for landscape use the slow and variable aperture isn't really a problem.  I interpreted the OP's desire as something wider but less distorted (the 16-35mm isn't wider, but not really much narrower either - but it is more distorted).  The 17-55mm is a bit narrower, and less distorted, but the 10-22mm handles distortion even better.

Y'know, I did see that, but it didn't register - mainly due to the 17-55mm's reputation for better quality.  But it's not worth buying a duplicate lens over.  And looking at the 15-85mm again, it looks like a pretty compelling alternative to the 17-55mm, especially since it has 30mm more at the long end and 2mm more at the wide (which is a somewhat noteworthy difference, and you aren't paying more for it).

I have to agree with the OP's decision; the 10-22mm is an interesting and useful option.  Personally, when I was considering a wide to normal zoom (I went for short to long telephoto), I was also tempted by the 16-35mm II (which the 10-22mm duplicates for EF-S) over the 10-22mm, but it's also a much more expensive optic.  And from what I've seen the quality is not quite the same as some other lenses - not surprising as it's a zoom of course (but even then it seems the 17-55mm is better, which for mentioning this lens is another reason I was stuck on the 17-55mm which appears more versatile and all-around superior to the 16-35mm on APS-C).  (And I'm talking about the TS-E 24mm which is in an entirely different class altogether - it's apparently sharper at similar apertures than the f/1.4 24mm.)

Anyway, enough rambling from me, enjoy the choice!

[neuroanatomist]

And looking at the 15-85mm again, it looks like a pretty compelling alternative to the 17-55mm, especially since it has 30mm more at the long end and 2mm more at the wide (which is a somewhat noteworthy difference, and you aren't paying more for it).

The optical quality of the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is on par with the 17-55mm f/2.8, except the 15-85mm has more barrel distortion at the wide end (excepted with the broader zoom range).  So, the trade offs are aperture, zoom range, and cost.  In that situation, I generally prefer the lens with a wider aperture; but, for someone who shoots outdoors much of the time, or has an external Speedlite and doesn't mind using it indoors, the 15-85mm is a good choice.

Personally, when I was considering a wide to normal zoom (I went for short to long telephoto), I was also tempted by the 16-35mm II (which the 10-22mm duplicates for EF-S) over the 10-22mm, but it's also a much more expensive optic.  And from what I've seen the quality is not quite the same as some other lenses - not surprising as it's a zoom of course (but even then it seems the 17-55mm is better, which for mentioning this lens is another reason I was stuck on the 17-55mm which appears more versatile and all-around superior to the 16-35mm on APS-C).  (And I'm talking about the TS-E 24mm which is in an entirely different class altogether - it's apparently sharper at similar apertures than the f/1.4 24mm.)

Yeah, I can't see using the 16-35mm f/2.8 as a walkaround lens on APS-C - too short, for one thing, and too much money paid for corner performance that's sacrificed on a 1.6x crop body.  However, it's a good option on FF (I have one for my 5DII, and the proceeds from selling my 10-22mm helped offset the cost of the UWA zoom). 

The TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is truly a wonderful lens - tack sharp, great for architectural shots and landscapes - I'm having a lot of fun with it!

[mjardeen]

Ok, I am a little perplexed. Why are we talking about the 16-35, 17-55, or even the 17-40 all of which are good 'standard' lenses when what he needed is an UW lens. In that category you have a limited number of choices ranging from the Canon 10-22, Sigmas, Tamron, and Tokinas that all cover a similar range. The OP does landscape photography so he needs wide. The bottom line is that the 10-22 is the best cropped sensor UW zoom of the bunch with the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 coming up next and the Tamron/Sigma being strong finishers. Depending on the lens you get, your quality will vary from lens to lens. The quality variation is less with the Canons.

[CR Backup Admin]

Ok, I am a little perplexed. Why are we talking about the 16-35, 17-55, or even the 17-40 all of which are good 'standard' lenses when what he needed is an UW lens. In that category you have a limited number of choices ranging from the Canon 10-22, Sigmas, Tamron, and Tokinas that all cover a similar range. The OP does landscape photography so he needs wide. The bottom line is that the 10-22 is the best cropped sensor UW zoom of the bunch with the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 coming up next and the Tamron/Sigma being strong finishers. Depending on the lens you get, your quality will vary from lens to lens. The quality variation is less with the Canons.

Perhaps, its because he listed lenses in this focal range, and asked how they compared? 

" have a canon 50D and I am considering the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. How is the optical quality of this lens verse the 16-35 f/2.8? Is it somewhat comparable? I have the EF-S 15-85 and I'm happy with the build and quality of it but I need a wider lens for landscape photos at times."

 

[bvukich]

Ok, I am a little perplexed. Why are we talking about the 16-35, 17-55, or even the 17-40 all of which are good 'standard' lenses when what he needed is an UW lens. In that category you have a limited number of choices ranging from the Canon 10-22, Sigmas, Tamron, and Tokinas that all cover a similar range. The OP does landscape photography so he needs wide. The bottom line is that the 10-22 is the best cropped sensor UW zoom of the bunch with the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 coming up next and the Tamron/Sigma being strong finishers. Depending on the lens you get, your quality will vary from lens to lens. The quality variation is less with the Canons.

Perhaps, its because he listed lenses in this focal range, and asked how they compared? 

" have a canon 50D and I am considering the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. How is the optical quality of this lens verse the 16-35 f/2.8? Is it somewhat comparable? I have the EF-S 15-85 and I'm happy with the build and quality of it but I need a wider lens for landscape photos at times."

In mjardeen's defense, the OP contradicts itself.  He does put out the suggestion of the 16-35, but also says he want's something wider than his 15-85.

[neuroanatomist]

In mjardeen's defense, the OP contradicts itself.  He does put out the suggestion of the 16-35, but also says he want's something wider than his 15-85.

I noticed that as well - perhaps the OP is under the (somewhat common) misconception that focal length number(s) for EF-S lenses are 'adjusted' for the crop factor, and thus the 10-22mm and the 16-35mm would give the same angle of view on a crop body.

[epsiloneri]

In mjardeen's defense, the OP contradicts itself.  He does put out the suggestion of the 16-35, but also says he want's something wider than his 15-85.

I don't find it contradicting to compare the IQ of two lenses of different focal length ranges. MTF, colour aberration, and vignetting, are all examples of things you can compare. You can even compare the IQ of a 14mm/2.8 lens to a 400mm/2.8, even if there of course are very few situations where you can substitute one for the other.

[contrastny]

[/quote]

In mjardeen's defense, the OP contradicts itself.  He does put out the suggestion of the 16-35, but also says he want's something wider than his 15-85.
[/quote]

I was only interested in the 16-35 to use on a FF camera. If the IQ was significantly better than the 10-22 I would wait, and in time, eventually get a FF camera and the 16-35mm.

So far I love the 15-85mm. I also looked at the 17-55 because of the reputation. The build of the 15-85 is great, probably as good as a plastic L series lens, though there are very few plastic L lenses.

[unfocused]

So far I love the 15-85mm...The build of the 15-85 is great...

I've had the 15-85mm for a year now and use it probably 95% of the time. It's sharp, very well built and I love that it's a 24mm equivalent at the wide end and a 135mm at the long end. Sure, it would be nice if it were a little faster and if Canon ever makes a faster version I'll upgrade. But for now, I'll take the wider range over speed.

[neuroanatomist]

I was only interested in the 16-35 to use on a FF camera. If the IQ was significantly better than the 10-22 I would wait, and in time, eventually get a FF camera and the 16-35mm.

The IQ from the 16-35mm on my 5DII is better than that of the 10-22mm on my 7D in terms of sharpness, color, and contrast.  AF performance is better as well, due to the f/2.8 aperture.  However, at 16mm there's more barrel distortion making it less effective for architectural shooting than the 10-22mm (although the latter still has some distortion - when I want no distortion, I use a TS-E lens).  Also, if you want UWA on 1.6x, the 10-22mm is the only option from Canon.

The build of the 15-85 is great, probably as good as a plastic L series lens, though there are very few plastic L lenses.

Going to disagree on that one, although I did make that comment about the 17-55mm on another forum, once upon a time.  The optical quality of the good EF-S lenses (17-55, 15-85, 10-22) is on par with many L-series lenses, but the build is not.  In addition to things like weather-sealing, L-lens zoom rings and focus rings move more smoothly, with a zoom there's not the same 'hollow clunk' when you hit the end of the zoom range, etc. 

Incidentally, you're wrong about L lenses with plastic barrels - almost every current black L lens has a plastic barrel!  The 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 17-40mm f/4L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 24-105mm f/4L IS, 135mm f/2L, the 180mm f/3.5L Macro, TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, and I could go on and on...all plastic barrels.  But, the quality and thickness of the plastic, the underlying metal frame, and the overall sturdier feel of those lenses make it hard to tell that the barrels are plastic. 

[mjardeen]

Ok, I am a little perplexed. Why are we talking about the 16-35, 17-55, or even the 17-40 all of which are good 'standard' lenses when what he needed is an UW lens. In that category you have a limited number of choices ranging from the Canon 10-22, Sigmas, Tamron, and Tokinas that all cover a similar range. The OP does landscape photography so he needs wide. The bottom line is that the 10-22 is the best cropped sensor UW zoom of the bunch with the Tokina 11-16 and 12-24 coming up next and the Tamron/Sigma being strong finishers. Depending on the lens you get, your quality will vary from lens to lens. The quality variation is less with the Canons.

Sorry to have sounded cranky, I was -- tough morning and I could have phrased it better. I have had a 20D, 40D and now use a 5D. I used the Tokina 12-24 with my 20D and 40D and enjoyed the lens. The 10-22mm was used only with the 40D and I loved that lens though for number of reasons I did not use it as much as I wish I had. Mostly because I had a 17-50 2.8 Tamron that I loved. When I made the switch to the 5D I sold the 10-22mm and picked up a nice 17-40 which I love, especially because it was a straight swap for the 10-22mm and became my 1st piece of 'L' glass.

[fximaging]

I used a 10-22mm on my 7D for about a year - and then switched to a 17-40mm L.   While the angle of view of the 10-22mm is certainly dramatic, I found there to be too many image quality issues - small details were somehow indistinct, colors hard to work with, and the lens isn't very good if you want to include people in your shots.    The 17-40mm L was very surprising for me - much sharper than expected, excellent detail, better color and contrast than the 10-22mm.   I happily traded off the extra width for better image quality.

[mjardeen]

I used a 10-22mm on my 7D for about a year - and then switched to a 17-40mm L.   While the angle of view of the 10-22mm is certainly dramatic, I found there to be too many image quality issues - small details were somehow indistinct, colors hard to work with, and the lens isn't very good if you want to include people in your shots.    The 17-40mm L was very surprising for me - much sharper than expected, excellent detail, better color and contrast than the 10-22mm.   I happily traded off the extra width for better image quality.

I am sure you did, but you are going from what amounts to a 16-35mm (the 10-22) equivalent to a roughly 27-64mm so of course you traded those things -- but you lost an ultrawide. You could have gotten a 15-85 or a 17-55 and had the same thing. You are comparing apples to oranges and while it may have made perfect sense for you (few people can shoot people with an UW Zoom), you lost coverage and the whole reason to own an UW. If you could only afford one of those lenses then you did make the right choice.