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



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 14, 2014)

```
<p>DXOMark has completed their review of the Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens. This relatively inexpensive lens has been receiving a lot of accolades for its performance/price value ratio.</p>
<p><strong>From DXOMark:</strong>

<em>“This lens isn’t a replacement for the existing, near pro-level EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM; it doesn’t match the range, speed (or build-quality) but with a similar optical performance, lower price and quiet STM AF motor this lens certainly has its place in Canon’s line-up. Knowing it will appeal to both stills and budding moviemakers it’s likely to be a popular addition, but it doesn’t really plug any holes in the maker’s range.”</em></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/canon1018compare.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-17586" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/canon1018compare-575x481.jpg" alt="canon1018compare" width="575" height="481" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM $299: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00K899B9Y/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00K899B9Y&linkCode=as2&tag=canorumo-20&linkId=SYUOCVQGBCUI2BEC" target="_blank">Amazon</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1051476-USA/canon_9519b002_ef_s_10_18mm_f_4_5_5_6_is.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA1018.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## skyoctane (Oct 14, 2014)

EF-s 10-22mm near pro? Please! I switched to full frame because of that CA cursed creature.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 14, 2014)

> _ but it doesn’t really plug any holes in the maker’s range._



Man, what do those guys think...

The Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM is a 300€/$ lens that allows beginners and people with a normal budget to get into UWA. 
I believe this is a really clever addition in Canons lineup meant for those double zoom kit buyers to at least buy a third lens and then get hooked. And it is small and light. And it will sell well.


----------



## spandau (Oct 14, 2014)

Took the attached photo with the 10-18 Canon lens using my 70D at Lassen National Park last week. Very happy with the lens. Video is very good with this lens with no image shaking when used while walking or panning. Cropped image as a 16x9.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 14, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Man, what do those guys think...



IMO, they should stick to measuring and stop trying to draw conclusions.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 14, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> > _ but it doesn’t really plug any holes in the maker’s range._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually think this lens is really awesome. It's super light, cheap, and it's image quality is great!
Where it also has value is for people that don't really shoot this wide. Like me. I shoot FF and crop, but had no desire to drop a ton of cash on a lens that I'd rarely use. This lens fills that hole too.


----------



## ajperk (Oct 14, 2014)

I've been very pleased with this lens. I owned the EF-S 10-22mm in the past, and maybe I had a poor copy of it, but I find this 10-18mm to be much sharper at the same focal lengths.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Man, what do those guys think...
> ...


+1 
And as you and others displayed very well some threads ago, even measuring (+biasing) seems too difficult for them. But that's just my (not so humble) thoughts.


----------



## Nethawk (Oct 14, 2014)

skyoctane said:


> EF-s 10-22mm near pro? Please! I switched to full frame because of that CA cursed creature.



And you see CA in the 10-18mm better? While IQ may have seen a tiny boost in sharpness, I found the 10-18mm to be behind in CA, flare (at wide end) and distortion. Loved the MF ring though, much more intuitive.

Both are very good lenses, but nothing from the cheaper offering made me want to sell the 10-22mm. 

Edit: I'm with you on the switch, mostly because of a general lack of quality zooms across the board for APS-C. I'll keep a 7D2 for reach, but want a FF for everything else.


----------



## Max Rockbin (Oct 15, 2014)

For stills, I think you could argue there are other options. Especially if you do some distortion and CA corrections in your Software of Choice (Lightroom). 

But I actually bought a Canon 70D over any other camera (including mirrorless options) because THIS lens existed. I do real estate video and stills. This lens is Very Wide, Stabilized (!), and quiet too. Is there another low distortion superwide that can claim all that (or even just being stabilized?).

One fault with DXO is they tend to overweight the extremes. Go just a little up from 10mm and distortion disappears. Chromatic aberration may not look stellar when you look at a single number, but look at the field map. It's a dinner plate. Great for most of the area, but terrible only in the extreme corners. On average? Middling. For practical use? Great! Go to 5.6 and you're really in business.

Personally, the sharpness is adequate for my use and better than most kit lenses (though psychologically, I'd like better...). Their criticism of sharpness is probably valid. But the idea that this lens just overlaps existing offerings? A statistician might get that impression, but photographer (and, especially video type person) would not say that.

My criticism? F/4.5 - 5.6. Ouch.


----------



## Khalai (Oct 15, 2014)

Max Rockbin said:


> But I actually bought a Canon 70D over any other camera (including mirrorless options) because THIS lens existed. I do real estate video and stills. This lens is Very Wide, Stabilized (!), and quiet too. Is there another low distortion superwide that can claim all that (or even just being stabilized?).



16-35/4L IS released along with this one  FF UWA with IS, low CA, albeit not exactly cheap. But optically best in the Canon UWA zoom lenses.


----------

