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

Status
Not open for further replies.
scalesusa said:
mjardeen said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
bvukich said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
bvukich said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
C

contrastny

Guest
[/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.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
contrastny said:
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.

contrastny said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
mjardeen said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
F

fximaging

Guest
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.
 
Upvote 0
fximaging said:
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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.