10-22 and 15-85

[Cardad]

I am thinking about adding the EF-S 10-22 to my collection of lenses. I have an EF-S 15-85 as my walk around lens and I love my 7D for its abilities in shooting action (motorsports). However, I want to expand to shoot other subjects, particularly architecture and landscapes. While I would like to add a FF to my arsenal, I'd say the 5Diii doesn't fit in the budget right now. The 10-22 seems like a nice addition for the wide end.

While I love the shots I get with the 15-85, I am sometimes put off by the barrel distortion at the 15mm end. From what I read, the EF-S 10-22 is pretty remarkable for its lack of barrel distortion. What I have not been able to discern from the reviews I have found is if the 10-22 may be less distorted at 15 or 16 mm than the 15-85. Can anyone who has used both tell me if I would gain anything over the 15-85 in the 15-17 mm range by adding the 10-22?

 

[wickidwombat]

I don't have one but everyone I know with them love them, the other lens to consider that lot of people rave about is the tokina 11-16 f2.8 its supposed to be killer on a crop

 

[jwong]

You don't know what you're missing until you get an ultrawide lens. The difference between 10mm and 15mm is huge. Some prefer the Tokina 11-16, but I think the zoom range is a bit restrictive although the f/2.8 is nice. But if you're shooting landscapes, you wouldn't be using f/2.8 much anyway. Indoors, the wider end will get you over 90 degree angle of view, which is the entire room if you stand in the corner.

I have the 17-55 f/2.8 as my general lens, and I got the 10-22 from the canon refurb store when they were running their sale late last year. I plan on selling it when I move to FF, and I see it more as a down payment for the 16-35 II. In the few months that I've had it, I've used it more than expected both indoor and outdoor. I also like that it overlaps my 17-55's range, so that I don't have to switch lenses as often.

 

[rhicks]

I have both the 15-85mm and the 10-22mm and love them both.

Since purchasing the 10-22mm last year, about 75% of my pictures have been taken with it. I'm using it for my walk around now and love it at 10mm and 22mm. I switch over to the 15-85mm for portraits and low light without a tripod. For everything else, the 10-22mm stays on the camera.

I've always wanted to go FF at some point, but it is going to be hard for me to give up the 10-22mm lens. It is that good.

As for the difference in barrel distortion between the lenses at 15-17mm, I don't see any. I haven't had an issue with barrel distortion on the 15-85mm. I shoot RAW and do all my lens corrections in Lightroom. The built in lens profile for the 15-85mm and the 10-22mm works great. I don't start looking for problems until the profile is applied.

 

[Tijn]

I've always wanted to go FF at some point, but it is going to be hard for me to give up the 10-22mm lens. It is that good.

The EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II will certainly be able to take that place for a FF camera. And it'll feel that much nicer, too.

 

[AmbientLight]

In case you really want to go and upgrade to full-frame then it may be better to select your lenses based on that assumption. Given that the 10-22 is not exactly a cheap lens you may ask yourself, is it the thing for me or not, if going full-frame in a year or so?

I am currently shooting with crop cameras and have been doing so since the 40D came out, but to this day I own not a single EF-S lens, instead having decided to go with L glass exclusively. So when I add a full-frame body (probably this year) I will have not one lens not fitting my new body.

For architecture and landscapes the current 5D Mark II is a valid choice and I believe will remain so even after a new bunch of full-frame cameras from Canon becomes available. So to optimize on costs I suggest to purchase a 5D Mark II and then go for a nice wide angle lens for full-frame.

 

[lol]

I only have the 15-85 myself, and there only use it in cases where distortion isn't really noticeable if its there. But going by photozone.de test results, the distortion they measured are:

EF-S 10-22:
10mm -1.21%
14mm 0.01%
22mm 0.24%

EF-S 15-85:
15mm -3.15%
24mm 0.58%
50mm 0.71%
85mm 0.32%

They have the test chart images on their site if you want to see what that distortion actually looks like.

If you're shooting around the 15-17mm mark, it would seem the 10-22 would offer the least optical distortion there somewhere between practically none to a very small amount. The 15-85 has quite significant barrel distortion at 15mm although we don't know how quickly that drops before it flips over to some pincushion distortion at 24mm. Maybe other review sites have figures for other focal lengths?

As others have said, you could also use software correction for distortion.

 

[bainsybike]

I have both the 10-22 and 15-85, and with my copies on my 50D the 15-85 is noticeably sharper at overlapping focal lengths. I'd be interested to know if anyone else has found the same.

 

[Haydn1971]

Are there any 10-22mm replacement rumours ?

 

[jwong]

In case you really want to go and upgrade to full-frame then it may be better to select your lenses based on that assumption. Given that the 10-22 is not exactly a cheap lens you may ask yourself, is it the thing for me or not, if going full-frame in a year or so?

I am currently shooting with crop cameras and have been doing so since the 40D came out, but to this day I own not a single EF-S lens, instead having decided to go with L glass exclusively. So when I add a full-frame body (probably this year) I will have not one lens not fitting my new body.

For architecture and landscapes the current 5D Mark II is a valid choice and I believe will remain so even after a new bunch of full-frame cameras from Canon becomes available. So to optimize on costs I suggest to purchase a 5D Mark II and then go for a nice wide angle lens for full-frame.

If the OP wants the wider focal lengths, then he should get an EF-S lens. Getting a used 5DII plus the 16-35 II would cost 3.5k, which is not within his budget. The 17-40 has more distortion than the the 10-22 and needs to be stopped down more. If he buys the 10-22 or a 3rd party UWA used, it might not cost him much at all "net". So what the issue is effectively maybe a $0-100 "rental" of the 10-22 or similar lens that he can use for photos now. He might be waiting over a year for a 5DIII, and buying and there is likely that buy and selling a 5DII would cost more than buying and selling the 10-22.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The 10-22mm has almost no distortion at 15-17mm. That's generally how zooms work - barrel at the wide end, some pincushion at the long end, little of either in the middle. The broader the zoom range, the more distortion - the 10-22mm is a 2.2x zoom, while the 15-85mm is a 3.7x zoom (and is also less well-corrected).

 

[jm345]

If you want to go wider than your 15-85, then by all means get the EF 10-22. It is a fantastic lens. I was thinking of getting the EF16-35II for my 5DII if the new EF24-70II had IS. But since it doesn't, I am keeping my EF17-55f/2.8IS and EF10-22 to happily use on my 7D and don't feel I am losing anything. Again, if you want pics wider than 15mm I think you will really like the EF10-22 on your 7D.

 

[Cardad]

My thanks to all of you who have responded. Exactly the information I was looking for!