Review: Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

[biggiep]

I bought my EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM when I bought my Canon 20D (2006). I see no reason to replace it. The minimum focus distance is 9.5 inches (24cm). At 10mm (16mm FF) there is some wonderful barrel distortion, but at 22mm (35mm FF) it's rectilinear and I've used it for products shots and people It weighs 13.6 oz. (385 g.) and uses 77mm filters.

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is lighter at 8.5 oz (240g), the minimum focus distance is about the same at 8.64in (22cm) and it uses smaller, less expensive, 67mm filters. It's also a lot cheaper -- $299.99 vs $649.99 (BTW these are Canon USA prices).

Photography is a lot like shooting, Snipers don't have stabilizers on their rifles and TV News Camera-people don't have stabilizers on their lenses. Holding a rifle/pistol or a camera steady is an acquired skill and fairly easy to learn.

It's truly bizarre to me that almost 20 years after Canon's first IS lens people still insist on staying ignorant about the benefits of IS. IS is not just about counteracting shaky hands, IS allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds than you normally would. f/4.5 with 3-4 stops optical stabilization on this lens will be able to handle lower shutter speeds than f/3.5 without on the 10-22mm. Can you use your imagination to think of any scenarios where lower shutter speeds are indispensable?

 

[Random Orbits]

The original Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (non-"Art" and optically identical) version is on run-out special, here in the UK at least, for £279. The "Art" version is £369, which is still cheaper than the EF 35mm f/2 IS at £459 (although I would probably recommend the Canon lens as worth the extra money). None of these is really at the same price point as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, which is why I think that there is still a gap in the market for a Canon equivalent.

I sort of agree when it comes to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but it is very heavy and quite expensive -£629 is quite a put off to the owner of an entry level camera that might have been purchased for half that amount. Whilst a set of fast primes may end up costing and weighing a similar amount, they have the advantage of being purchased over a period of time and not needing to be mounted on the camera at the same time. The problem with Canon's current strategy is that you're forced to use full frame ultra-wides with all the attendant size, cost and speed disadvantages to fill in for non-existent dedicated APS-C wide angles.

I wouldn't like to comment on the production costs of a 6D versus a X-T1, but one could turn your argument around and point out that the X-T1 currently manages to hold 75% of the 6D's price despite being only APS-C. My guess would be that whatever cost savings can be made on a full frame camera can also be applied to an APS-C camera. Besides, the real cost of jumping up a format size can often be measured in lenses rather than just the body.

I know that one runs into thorny ground with the whole lens equivalence question, but I think that if absolute depth of field and/or low light performance are critical to your style of photography, then you're probably one of the people for whom full-frame-35mm will always make sense. If you're prepared to accept some compromises, sub-frame can make sense; it's just a question of which brand offers the most for the least...

It's too bad the EOS-M is doing as poorly as it is outside of its home market because I think it was Canon's attempt to do what you want: create a small, mirrorless system that is affordable. I jumped on the bandwagon during the US fire sale, and I'm impressed. The 22 f/2 is a treat to use, and the 18-55 IS works well in good light. M1 has slow AF, but the M-mount design philosophy is sound. There is no reason why they could not have various M-bodies with various levels of controls and have them share a common mount and family of lenses. If it had been sucessful, I could see Canon replacing the entire Rebel line in the future with the M system (with a similar system to Fuji). Unfortunately, the idea has not caught on.

 

[c.d.embrey]

It's truly bizarre to me that almost 20 years after Canon's first IS lens people still insist on staying ignorant about the benefits of IS. IS is not just about counteracting shaky hands, IS allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds than you normally would. f/4.5 with 3-4 stops optical stabilization on this lens will be able to handle lower shutter speeds than f/3.5 without on the 10-22mm. Can you use your imagination to think of any scenarios where lower shutter speeds are indispensable?

I can successively shoot an EF 85mm f/1.8 at 1/4 second on a crop-camera. Therefore the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is not a problem, for me. YMMV. I can also drive a stick-shift (manual) transmission car. YMMV.

There are many times an IS system is handy -- Long Whites comes to mind. But a 10-18mm you've to to be kidding!

But not-to-worry, your side has won : Canon has also added Image Stabilization to the EF 16-35mmf/4L IS USM. When will Canon add IS to the EF 14mm f/2.8L and EF 15mm f/2.8L ??? I'm sure that Zeiss will soon add IS to their Wide Angle Prime lenses

 

[pj1974]

It's truly bizarre to me that almost 20 years after Canon's first IS lens people still insist on staying ignorant about the benefits of IS. IS is not just about counteracting shaky hands, IS allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds than you normally would. f/4.5 with 3-4 stops optical stabilization on this lens will be able to handle lower shutter speeds than f/3.5 without on the 10-22mm. Can you use your imagination to think of any scenarios where lower shutter speeds are indispensable?

I can successively shoot an EF 85mm f/1.8 at 1/4 second on a crop-camera. Therefore the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 is not a problem, for me. YMMV. I can also drive a stick-shift (manual) transmission car. YMMV.

There are many times an IS system is handy -- Long Whites comes to mind. But a 10-18mm you've to to be kidding!

But not-to-worry, your side has won : Canon has also added Image Stabilization to the EF 16-35mmf/4L IS USM. When will Canon add IS to the EF 14mm f/2.8L and EF 15mm f/2.8L ??? I'm sure that Zeiss will soon add IS to their Wide Angle Prime lenses

I have been shooting photos for years, and was very happy when image stabilisation / optical stabilisation came out. It definitely benefit many of my photo opportunities (both in lenses, and in digital P&S’s).

Some people definitely have steadier hands than others (and some people are better practised at this). However to suggest that most people could consistently achieve sharp hand held photos with exposure of 1/4 second at 85mm (on an APS-C body) is a fallacy. I would suggest that even the steadiest percentile of photographers can not achieve this consistently!

Much of my photography requires small apertures… eg f/8 to f/16 (yes, I know… diffraction starts to set in… but this overall very minor decrease in sharpness (ie at small apertures like f/16) is offset by having a photo with a sufficiently sharp (close) foreground to (distant) background.

There is definitely a place for IS, also in UWAs. In fact for several years, I have been hoping that Canon might even come out with an in-body IS system. Yes, I’ll admit it – I’m jealous of that possibility offered by some other manufacturers.

On the whole I prefer the overall Canon system (features and quality of DSLR bodies, lenses and accessories). Even if in body IS offered 2 to 3 stops of IS (rather than the 4 in most new lenses) that would be welcome… I fully realise I’m being quite hopeful and optimistic in this, but an extra 2 to 3 stops stabilisation for my Sigma 8-16 would be AWESOME. (It’s such a good lens!) I’m thrilled with my Canon 15-85mm as my walk around, it’s 4 stop effective IS proves so useful – also at 15mm.

Sure I find most use for IS on my fantastic 70-300mm L, where that lens' 4 stop IS is really helpful, and in some ways a 'photo saver'.

But even then, for many of my photos, a steady tripod is required. There is nothing like having a good sturdy tripod from which to take photos with any duration of shutter speed. Just IS is helpful for when I don’t want to lug around a tripod (or when they are not allowed in certain environments).

Professional photographers and videographers alike use IS extensively – AND use tripods too. That’s not to say that in all situations tripods are required, or that photographers who don’t have or use a tripod – are ‘unprofessional’ or ‘limited’. They might just not do that type of photography that requires it… OR they might be happy with ‘blurry photos’ (and I’m not talking about pixel peeping… I’m not a pixel peeper!) To suggest that either IS and/or tripods are not needed shows an ignorance about the breadth and requirements within certain genres of photography.

Well done Canon for introducing IS into your first UWA – in the EF-M 11-22mm. And thanks now for adding IS to the EF 16-35mm L F/4 and the EF-S 10-18mm. It’s a good thing!

 

[traveller]

It's too bad the EOS-M is doing as poorly as it is outside of its home market because I think it was Canon's attempt to do what you want: create a small, mirrorless system that is affordable. I jumped on the bandwagon during the US fire sale, and I'm impressed. The 22 f/2 is a treat to use, and the 18-55 IS works well in good light. M1 has slow AF, but the M-mount design philosophy is sound. There is no reason why they could not have various M-bodies with various levels of controls and have them share a common mount and family of lenses. If it had been sucessful, I could see Canon replacing the entire Rebel line in the future with the M system (with a similar system to Fuji). Unfortunately, the idea has not caught on.

EOS-M is exactly what I didn't want to see, i.e. a proliferation of different lens mounts confusing potential customers and diluting resources (hello Sony :). Whilst I've got nothing against EOS-M from a technological point of view (other than needing a more enthusiast specified body with an EVF -but that's another discussion), it is a bit of a distraction from the best-selling EF-S line. We've ended up with two new lens lines with an incomplete set of options in each.

I've ranted on getting further and further off topic for too long on this thread, so please accept my apologies. I would like to sign off on this matter by restating that in my view, lenses are Canon (and Nikon's) weakness on APS-C bodies as much as they are their core strength on full frame.

 

[Zv]

The original Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (non-"Art" and optically identical) version is on run-out special, here in the UK at least, for £279. The "Art" version is £369, which is still cheaper than the EF 35mm f/2 IS at £459 (although I would probably recommend the Canon lens as worth the extra money). None of these is really at the same price point as the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, which is why I think that there is still a gap in the market for a Canon equivalent.

I sort of agree when it comes to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, but it is very heavy and quite expensive -£629 is quite a put off to the owner of an entry level camera that might have been purchased for half that amount. Whilst a set of fast primes may end up costing and weighing a similar amount, they have the advantage of being purchased over a period of time and not needing to be mounted on the camera at the same time. The problem with Canon's current strategy is that you're forced to use full frame ultra-wides with all the attendant size, cost and speed disadvantages to fill in for non-existent dedicated APS-C wide angles.

I wouldn't like to comment on the production costs of a 6D versus a X-T1, but one could turn your argument around and point out that the X-T1 currently manages to hold 75% of the 6D's price despite being only APS-C. My guess would be that whatever cost savings can be made on a full frame camera can also be applied to an APS-C camera. Besides, the real cost of jumping up a format size can often be measured in lenses rather than just the body.

I know that one runs into thorny ground with the whole lens equivalence question, but I think that if absolute depth of field and/or low light performance are critical to your style of photography, then you're probably one of the people for whom full-frame-35mm will always make sense. If you're prepared to accept some compromises, sub-frame can make sense; it's just a question of which brand offers the most for the least...

It's too bad the EOS-M is doing as poorly as it is outside of its home market because I think it was Canon's attempt to do what you want: create a small, mirrorless system that is affordable. I jumped on the bandwagon during the US fire sale, and I'm impressed. The 22 f/2 is a treat to use, and the 18-55 IS works well in good light. M1 has slow AF, but the M-mount design philosophy is sound. There is no reason why they could not have various M-bodies with various levels of controls and have them share a common mount and family of lenses. If it had been sucessful, I could see Canon replacing the entire Rebel line in the future with the M system (with a similar system to Fuji). Unfortunately, the idea has not caught on.

I think the EF-M 22mm lens is one of the best value for money lenses you can get. Essentially we are getting it for free or another way to look at it is you get a 35mm FOV lens with a camera attached to it! That's how I saw it. It's not a perfect camera but it is APS-C and spits out 18MP RAW files. That's good enough for for me at that price. 35mm prime - covered.

For all other serious stuff I use the FF (or both!).

 

[dufflover]

Any reviews/comments on how it stacks up for people who already own a cheapo EOS-M and 11-22mm combo?

 

[sdsr]

Photozone's review is now available:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/874-canon_1018_4556is

I guess I'll be buying one....

 

[sdsr]

On the off-chance anyone reading this cares, my 10-18mm arrived today. Just for the heck of it, to test it out I attached it to my Sony a6000 rather than my SL1 and was pleasantly surprised to see that, even though it's a new lens, the Metabones EF-Nex adapter provides full support for it - AF works even though it doesn't with many older EF lenses (it seems a bit faster with EF-S lenses than with EF), as do aperture control, IS and (I expect) exif data. Given the difference in crop factor, this makes the lens a tad wider/shorter. I look forward to trying it later on my SL1.

I don't want to get into the "who needs IS on a wide lens" debate, and I've so far not had a chance to look at any of the photos I've taken except by zooming in on the camera's monitor, but so far the IS seems impressive - I took a string of photos in a rather dark space with the lens wide open, set the ISO at 400, and obtained images that, without exception, look sharp at 1/8s.

If the camera's monitor isn't too misleading, this lens may be the ridiculous bargain of the year.

(It will be interesting to see whether it can be used on an A7/r similar to the Sony equivalent.)

 

[sdsr]

On the off-chance anyone reading this cares, my 10-18mm arrived today. Just for the heck of it, to test it out I attached it to my Sony a6000 rather than my SL1 and was pleasantly surprised to see that, even though it's a new lens, the Metabones EF-Nex adapter provides full support for it - AF works even though it doesn't with many older EF lenses (it seems a bit faster with EF-S lenses than with EF), as do aperture control, IS and (I expect) exif data. Given the difference in crop factor, this makes the lens a tad wider/shorter. I look forward to trying it later on my SL1.

I don't want to get into the "who needs IS on a wide lens" debate, and I've so far not had a chance to look at any of the photos I've taken except by zooming in on the camera's monitor, but so far the IS seems impressive - I took a string of photos in a rather dark space with the lens wide open, set the ISO at 400, and obtained images that, without exception, look sharp at 1/8s.

If the camera's monitor isn't too misleading, this lens may be the ridiculous bargain of the year.

(It will be interesting to see whether it can be used on an A7/r similar to the Sony equivalent.)

Update - at 10mm on an a6000 you don't get 15mm equiv. unless you don't mind the fact that the extreme corners are too dark to remedy (well, maybe with a lot of fiddling that may not be worth the effort). And unlike the Sony equivalent, it doesn't work at all as any sort of ff camera on an A7r; so much for that, then. But otherwise, it works just fine on an a6000 - no extreme corner problems after 10mm, and the image quality is impressive. I look forward to trying it on my SL1....