Canon 10-22 vs 10-18

[Pieces Of E]

I like my 10-22 EF-S better than my 24-105L.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Lets get this one started....

Looking at MTF charts alone, how much better is the 10-22 vs 10-18? If we take the charts at face value, will the 10-22 be sharper or softer? Additionally, even if the 10-18 is a little softer, with it being half the price, would it be a much better value?

Thoughts?

Looking at the first real world test. Not at all!
On photozone.de the 10-18 IQ totally blows the 10-22 out of the water. And it costs less.
Nice.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Agreed with the weight ratio... but overall which is better?

The significant differences are the 4mm on the long end and faster aperture of the 10-22mm, vs. the IS and lower cost of the 10-18mm.

To answer the OP's question, based solely on Canon's published MTF charts, the 10-18mm is slightly better than the 10-22mm (and the EF-M 11-22mm is better than both). The differences are minor enough that they would likely not be very evident in real-world shooting.

Also, bear in mind that those MTF curves are theoretical – they're calculated by computer based on the optical formulae of the lenses, not measured from actual lenses. In other words, Canon's MTF curves represent the best possible case, and for real lenses variances in production may affect performance. The 10-18mm has a plastic bayonet mount, suggesting that the production might not be as tightly controlled (but we really can't know).

More importantly, the MTF curves show sharpness and contrast, but tell us nothing about vignetting, distortion, flare control, or any of the host of other factors that impact image quality. Then there are other things like AF speed and reliability, full time manual focusing, handling, etc., any or all of which can be important in determining what one thinks is 'best'.

So, overall which is better will depend entirely on your personal needs.

In early real world tests the differences actually do appear to be significantly in favor of the 10-18. And it costs way less and has IS. Yeah the 10-22 is a faster lens, but how important is that for most in an UWA? I bet not nearly as much as the much better optics of the new lens, the IS of the new lens, and much lower price of the new lens.

 

[Cory]

I've just been enlisted to chronicle (daily) the construction of a large Veterans' Monument who's construction begins on Monday. I've also been approached just today by a realtor for some of that.
For the life of me I can't decide between the 10-18, either of the two Sigma 10-20's or the Tokina 11-16 II (although possibly slightly leaning towards the Tokina). There's also the Sigma 8-16, of course.
Can anyone tell me which one to get? I have a 70D and will more than likely stick with that for awhile and crop sensors for even longer; probably.
Thanks.

 

[quiquae]

Whatever.

They're both EF-S lenses and as we all know, Canon treats the whole EF-S line like second class citizens. I mean, for instance, how many years and iterations has it taken for the 18-55mm to perform acceptably? Not to mention that there used to be USM on it....8 years ago. Sure the optics have gotten better but I suspect that's more to do with the need for more resolving power due to the megapickle wars than them actually caring any significant amount.

There was an interview with a Canon lens engineer in Japan, where he was asked for the "best" lens and "most recommended" lens. I don't remember what he said for the former--70-200 f/2.8L IS II, maybe. But for the latter, he said "EF-S 18-55 IS II. You may think we treat it lightly because it's cheap, but the reality is completely different: we assign our veteran engineers and tremendous amount of development, because what we have to do is to get quality image out of relatively few lenses and cheap components."

And speaking of USM, there might never be another EF-S lens released with USM and full time manual focusing again now that they've gotten stepper motors cheap enough to stuff into these things. Think on that for a minute. The pretty darn good (but $$$) 17-55mm 2.8, the solid 15-85mm and the cool 10-22mm could all lose their excellent USM when they get refreshed, regardless of better optics. And for no other reason than their mount.

On my Rebel T4i, 18-135 STM and 55-250 STM's AF are as fast as a 24-105L USM in OVF mode, and much faster in live view mode. The only real downside to STM is that full-time manual focus doesn't work until the camera is awake, which is not that big of a deal.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Lets get this one started....

Looking at MTF charts alone, how much better is the 10-22 vs 10-18? If we take the charts at face value, will the 10-22 be sharper or softer? Additionally, even if the 10-18 is a little softer, with it being half the price, would it be a much better value?

Thoughts?

The new 10-18 is 2/3 stops slower but it has huge benefits like smaller, lighter, smaller filter, 3-stop IS and cheaper so no brainer (it's a steal). If you don't have UWA go for this. I had the 10-22mm and I was happy and if you have it, there is no sence to go for the new 10-18mm.

Most of those 'huge benefits' are subjective. Even the IS is arguable. I'll concede that I'd rather have it than not, but if it's a tradeoff between that and a wider aperture not everyone is going to choose IS, especially at UWA. Add in the better build quality, distance indicator, full time manual focus, 22mm, and USM and now it's not a 'no brainer' at all. Even the smaller filter size is debateable. All my filters are 77mm, so the 10-22 wins on that account too... for me. And for the final nail in the coffin, I can currently get a 10-22 refurbished from Canon for under $400, less than a $100 difference, if I could even buy the 10-18. I'm not saying the 10-18 won't sell like hotcakes, just that the 10-22 still has its niche.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree.
I owned and loved the 10-22, it is a great lens!
However, there really is very few reasons to buy it any more; good reasons, that is.

Build quality: who cares about pennies. Both have a cheap build quality, just cheap and cheaper. The 10-22 isn't weather sealed either, and they are both quite plasticky, and similarly likely to break in a fall. A lot has been made about metal mounts, but I am yet to see significant number of people complaining about plastic mounts breaking.
Distance indicator and FTM: How much does one really use those in a WA lens with AF? I use it quite a bit with my Rokinon, however, but never did with my 10-22 (it has markings at 1 ft, 3 ft and infinity, by the way). Only time you might need it is when focusing at infinity (night sky, etc).
USM: Not a big difference between USM and STM in a wide angle lens with such short throw.

Not worth paying more money and losing IS, IMO. No question about it.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Lets get this one started....

Looking at MTF charts alone, how much better is the 10-22 vs 10-18? If we take the charts at face value, will the 10-22 be sharper or softer? Additionally, even if the 10-18 is a little softer, with it being half the price, would it be a much better value?

Thoughts?

The new 10-18 is 2/3 stops slower but it has huge benefits like smaller, lighter, smaller filter, 3-stop IS and cheaper so no brainer (it's a steal). If you don't have UWA go for this. I had the 10-22mm and I was happy and if you have it, there is no sence to go for the new 10-18mm.

Most of those 'huge benefits' are subjective. Even the IS is arguable. I'll concede that I'd rather have it than not, but if it's a tradeoff between that and a wider aperture not everyone is going to choose IS, especially at UWA. Add in the better build quality, distance indicator, full time manual focus, 22mm, and USM and now it's not a 'no brainer' at all. Even the smaller filter size is debateable. All my filters are 77mm, so the 10-22 wins on that account too... for me. And for the final nail in the coffin, I can currently get a 10-22 refurbished from Canon for under $400, less than a $100 difference, if I could even buy the 10-18. I'm not saying the 10-18 won't sell like hotcakes, just that the 10-22 still has its niche.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree.
I owned and loved the 10-22, it is a great lens!
However, there really is very few reasons to buy it any more; good reasons, that is.

Build quality: who cares about pennies. Both have a cheap build quality, just cheap and cheaper. The 10-22 isn't weather sealed either, and they are both quite plasticky, and similarly likely to break in a fall. A lot has been made about metal mounts, but I am yet to see significant number of people complaining about plastic mounts breaking.
Distance indicator and FTM: How much does one really use those in a WA lens with AF? I use it quite a bit with my Rokinon, however, but never did with my 10-22 (it has markings at 1 ft, 3 ft and infinity, by the way). Only time you might need it is when focusing at infinity (night sky, etc).
USM: Not a big difference between USM and STM in a wide angle lens with such short throw.

Not worth paying more money and losing IS, IMO. No question about it.

I love the old 10-22mm. Yes, it isn't built like a tank. If it was, it probably would have tweaked the 7D's lens mount. It went to Canon(CPS) in 3 bags. Got it back in 3 business days. The repair was replacing everything except the front lens assembly- new mount, iris, servo, and the entire inner lens group. Cost? $59.

Canon 10-22mm Lens- forced disassembly by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

 

[sagittariansrock]

I love the old 10-22mm. Yes, it isn't built like a tank. If it was, it probably would have tweaked the 7D's lens mount. It went to Canon(CPS) in 3 bags. Got it back in 3 business days. The repair was replacing everything except the front lens assembly- new mount, iris, servo, and the entire inner lens group. Cost? $59.

$ 59 to replace everything? Surely that cannot be standard pricing that applies to mere mortals like us.
In any case, this reinforces what I said. The 10-18 is cheaper and will be more of a crumple zone

As I said, I loved my 10-22 as well and it was one of the reasons I was balking at going FF and settling for an inferior UWA (the 16-35/4 was a distant thought back then).
But now, someone without an UWA should have no reason to drop $ 600 on it instead of getting a 10-18 for $ 300. It IS a no-brainer.