EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples

[Khufu]

Did someone really question why people in the UK are annoyed at the marked up prices and then go on to prove that the UK is paying a good sum more than all other countries as back up for their point...?
I have never bought a camera or lens in a UK high street shop and that is the reason why. I will go in and try out everything in Jessops as it's the best way to get a feel of a camera/lens, but I'll buy it off Amazon or the likes.

obviously you fail at reading. the prices aren't marked up.

You are paying the same as the people in japan are.

canon isn't a US company - or do they not know that over there?

Dude, I try to stay off the internet when I've been drinking...

To state what's obvious to others, if perhaps not yourself; you've just posted figured to confirm that both the Japanese and US prices are less than, not equal to, the UK price, followed by another kind poster letting us know that it's also cheaper in the Netherlands.

It appears that your desire to appear to be an elite, admirable fountain of knowledge surpasses your inclination to avoid coming across as an arrogant, clueless, contradictory prick. I didn't need to put that so childishly but you started it.

 

[rrcphoto]

Did someone really question why people in the UK are annoyed at the marked up prices and then go on to prove that the UK is paying a good sum more than all other countries as back up for their point...?
I have never bought a camera or lens in a UK high street shop and that is the reason why. I will go in and try out everything in Jessops as it's the best way to get a feel of a camera/lens, but I'll buy it off Amazon or the likes.

obviously you fail at reading. the prices aren't marked up.

You are paying the same as the people in japan are.

canon isn't a US company - or do they not know that over there?

Dude, I try to stay off the internet when I've been drinking...

To state what's obvious to others, if perhaps not yourself; you've just posted figured to confirm that both the Japanese and US prices are less than, not equal to, the UK price, followed by another kind poster letting us know that it's also cheaper in the Netherlands.

It appears that your desire to appear to be an elite, admirable fountain of knowledge surpasses your inclination to avoid coming across as an arrogant, clueless, contradictory prick. I didn't need to put that so childishly but you started it.

oh i'm sorry i figured you could do the math of VAT + a value and come up with a value to which you'd find that, no, it's not.

so in case you can't .. 46000 Yen = 270 sterling = 324 sterling. in actuality you pay less than the people in that country that made it. however it's probably equals out close enough.

people are using the USD and saying canon or company A is gouging. Well, it may be; UK is certainly a more expensive place to do business AND on top of that you are a limited market, so you would be not benefiting as much from volume.

however, it's hard to argue when you don't use the country that manufactured the item's native currency to do the math - would you not agree?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

For a $300 lens, the results look very good. This may be one of those lenses all APS-C shooters end up buying.

Indeed! I think for many people this 10-18 IS STM and the 18-135 IS STM are the only 2 lenses the'd ever need ... for the price & performance, those 2 lenses, (plus the 40 f/2.8 or the 50 f/1.8 ) will add a lot of value for people who shoot with the rebel & xxD cameras. Good move by Canon!

 

[lol]

Am I being silly or are there bigger sample images available yet?


It has been a while since I was in US or JP, but from memory prices in both countries exclude sales tax right? What is the "going rate"? UK £300 ex. VAT would be £250.

As for comparing prices to the US for a JP company, that can work. If you look at currency conversions, it all balances out. If it didn't, people would exploit those differences by changing money between them and make a profit.

I don't know about other countries, but historically in the UK, lenses seem to be released at full RRP for pre-orders and shortly after launch. Depending on availability and market forces, it will tend to quickly drop to a more reasonable street level after some time. The bigger question is how much and when, but you tend to see faster drops early on, before the slower drop or even flat price over the longer term. I don't know if there is much of this effect in other countries also.

Back to the lens itself, I find myself likely to get one. I used to have the old variable aperture Sigma before I was on Canon and never got round to replacing it, making do with a fisheye instead. Not quite the same I'll admit. To me personally, the speed difference is not significant as I'll be using it around f/8 anyway for more depth of field and better sharpness across the frame. It will be used more at the wide end than long end so I wont miss that. Focus speed? Is that really important for a UWA? Give it a little time and it will be half the price of the 10-22, and I don't think you can complain about the value there.

Side note: for the 10-22's money, I'd rather be looking at the Sigma 8-16 anyway...

 

[Rienzphotoz]

looks like an excellent partner for the 15-85

+1

 

[mb66energy]

Am I being silly or are there bigger sample images available yet?

[...]

There are bigger samples if you click the link below the image in its caption - just right from the number of the picture which is in a readable "language". (I just hovered with the mouse over the caption to see if there is something more representative ... and found it.)

They are some 20 MPix large so they might be taken with EOS 6D and EOS 70D ...

 

[moreorless]

looks like an excellent partner for the 15-85

I'm guessing more like an add on for the 18-55mm given the build and price.

Very smart move by Canon IMHO since by US prices especially(I won't be surprised to see UK prices come down to £260ish in a few months) its offering UWA cheaper than anyone else.

 

[lol]

There are bigger samples if you click the link below the image in its caption - just right from the number of the picture which is in a readable "language". (I just hovered with the mouse over the caption to see if there is something more representative ... and found it.)

They are some 20 MPix large so they might be taken with EOS 6D and EOS 70D ...

Thanks. Picked a few at random, exif says they're taken with the Kiss X7 (100D). Samples lacked a little punch but easily fixed by a tad more sharpening... think I might get one sooner than later at this rate!

 

[neech7]

"I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."

"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer"

"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"

Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.

Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?

 

[wickidwombat]

i'm gonna keep an eye on discounts of this lens and snap one up for my parents for sure as they don't have an UWA at the moment and IS for them is gold even on a wide angle its much more forgiving for older and inexperienced photographers

 

[Random Orbits]

"I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."

"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer"

"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"

Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.

Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?

Or, maybe these folks are right on this one. The 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II were more expensive that what was previously offered. The 70-200 II was an upgraded version, whereas the 24-70 trades focal length for some IQ and macro capabilities, but it still costs more. This one is designed to be slower and to cost less than what is in the market (10-22). The MTF charts don't look radically different, so at the end of the day it may come down to IS and price versus aperture, build quality.

 

[moreorless]

Again my guess is that this lens isn't really aimed at existing 10-22mm owners, in the US your looking at double the price for that lens relative to the 10-18mm.

The 10-18mm seems best matched for rebel users and I think its allowed Canon to get a march on its rivals here as up until now UWA has always been priced at a premium on ASPC or indeed m43.

 

[neech7]

"I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."

"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer"

"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"

Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.

Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?

Or, maybe these folks are right on this one. The 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II were more expensive that what was previously offered. The 70-200 II was an upgraded version, whereas the 24-70 trades focal length for some IQ and macro capabilities, but it still costs more. This one is designed to be slower and to cost less than what is in the market (10-22). The MTF charts don't look radically different, so at the end of the day it may come down to IS and price versus aperture, build quality.

You see the same kind of reaction from existing 16-35 f/2.8 II owners when the 16-35 f/4 IS was announced on the same day. Now this one is a cheaper and slower lens. How do you explain that? It's a cheaper lens that has IS and a better MTF chart, despite losing out in other areas. Perhaps that lens was to replace the 17-40, but 16-35 f/2.8 II owners feel the need to defend their choice of lens as well.

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.

 

[bainsybike]

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.

Where did you find the MTF chart for the 11-22?

 

[rs]

"I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."

"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer"

"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"

Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.

Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?

Or, maybe these folks are right on this one. The 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II were more expensive that what was previously offered. The 70-200 II was an upgraded version, whereas the 24-70 trades focal length for some IQ and macro capabilities, but it still costs more. This one is designed to be slower and to cost less than what is in the market (10-22). The MTF charts don't look radically different, so at the end of the day it may come down to IS and price versus aperture, build quality.

You see the same kind of reaction from existing 16-35 f/2.8 II owners when the 16-35 f/4 IS was announced on the same day. Now this one is a cheaper and slower lens. How do you explain that? It's a cheaper lens that has IS and a better MTF chart, despite losing out in other areas. Perhaps that lens was to replace the 17-40, but 16-35 f/2.8 II owners feel the need to defend their choice of lens as well.

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.

First of all, the plastic mount, slower aperture and slower AF are all pretty big pills to swallow on top of the reduced focal length range - all issues people with 24-105's didn't have to contemplate when looking at the 24-70/4.

And secondly, the MTF charts look pretty damn similar at f8. Comparing the performance at any other aperture is impossible with the data so far - one MTF shows 10mm f3.5 performance and the other 10/4.5. Who's to say what's Canon's simulated MTF of the 10-22 looks like at 10mm when stopped down to 4.5? And at the long end it's even harder to compare due to different aperture and focal length.

This lens is a great addition to the lineup. But it is clearly part of the plastic mount, STM, budget lineup. Not the premium EF-S lens range. The budget range is now looking pretty spectacular, and the premium range is getting a little bit old, but you don't hear of many people preferring the really sharp 18-55 STM over the 17-55. They're just not in the same ball park.

 

[dcm]

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.

Where did you find the MTF chart for the 11-22?

http://www.canon.com.hk/en/product/catalog/productItemDetails.do?prrfnbr=200684

 

[bainsybike]

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.

Where did you find the MTF chart for the 11-22?

http://www.canon.com.hk/en/product/catalog/productItemDetails.do?prrfnbr=200684

Thanks!

 

[Random Orbits]

"I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."

"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer"

"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"

Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.

Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?

Or, maybe these folks are right on this one. The 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II were more expensive that what was previously offered. The 70-200 II was an upgraded version, whereas the 24-70 trades focal length for some IQ and macro capabilities, but it still costs more. This one is designed to be slower and to cost less than what is in the market (10-22). The MTF charts don't look radically different, so at the end of the day it may come down to IS and price versus aperture, build quality.

You see the same kind of reaction from existing 16-35 f/2.8 II owners when the 16-35 f/4 IS was announced on the same day. Now this one is a cheaper and slower lens. How do you explain that? It's a cheaper lens that has IS and a better MTF chart, despite losing out in other areas. Perhaps that lens was to replace the 17-40, but 16-35 f/2.8 II owners feel the need to defend their choice of lens as well.

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.

Actually I don't see the 16-35 f/2.8 vs. f/4 IS discussion nearly as contentious as the 24-70 f/4 IS or the 5DII vs. 6D. I don't think 16-35 II users feel the need to defend the 16-35 II versus the 16-35 f/4. For those of us (me included) that have it, if you need f/2.8, then the 16-35 II is your only choice. But I'm considering swapping the f/2.8 for the 16-35 f/4 IS, just like many in this forum. Would I prefer a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as good if not better than the 16-35 f/4? Yes, but then it's not out yet (if ever), so that is not a choice for now.

And too bad you can't use the 11-22 except on the M, so that is not germane to the discussion. And no, the MTFs are not that different between the 10-22 and the 10-18. Losing 1 stop on APS-C is a much bigger deal than on FF.

I do think the 10-22 and 17-55 will be replaced and those will be much better than the 10-18, but those aren't out yet, and you're comparing new lenses to those nearly 10 years old.

 

[Etienne]

The best UWA for APS-C is still the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's a narrow range, but you get lots of light and it's sharp. Why settle for lower image quality, and less light? YMMV

 

[Loswr]

The best UWA for APS-C is still the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's a narrow range, but you get lots of light and it's sharp. Why settle for lower image quality, and less light?

How do you know the IQ of the Tokina is superior to the new Canon 10-18mm?

Also…for static subjects, 4 stops of IS beats 2 stops of light.