# Canon 10-22 vs 10-18



## Terry Rogers (May 14, 2014)

Lets get this one started....

Looking at MTF charts alone, how much better is the 10-22 vs 10-18? If we take the charts at face value, will the 10-22 be sharper or softer? Additionally, even if the 10-18 is a little softer, with it being half the price, would it be a much better value?

Thoughts?


----------



## Khalai (May 14, 2014)

10-18 seems to be a little sharper with better contrast on the wide end with wide open aperture, but that's not a fair comparision, since 10-22 is 2/3 stop faster. And since at f/8 on the wide end, 10-22 has a better sharpness, one can assume, those lenses will be very similar in perfomance on the same aperture values. On the tele end, this seems to be the neck-to-neck performance already.

But, if you consider the pricing, 10-18 seems like a bargain, compared to 10-22. Take a 100D body with 10-18 and you have a very pocketable UWA possibility for a fair price


----------



## sfunglee (May 15, 2014)

I'm also wondering which is better :


----------



## procentje20 (May 15, 2014)

sfunglee said:


> I'm also wondering which is better :



There is the ken rockwell answer: the 10-18mm is lighter. So its better.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 15, 2014)

Khalai said:


> 10-18 seems to be a little sharper with better contrast on the wide end with wide open aperture, but that's not a fair comparision, since 10-22 is 2/3 stop faster. And since at f/8 on the wide end, 10-22 has a better sharpness, one can assume, those lenses will be very similar in perfomance on the same aperture values. On the tele end, this seems to be the neck-to-neck performance already.
> 
> But, if you consider the pricing, 10-18 seems like a bargain, compared to 10-22. Take a 100D body with 10-18 and you have a very pocketable UWA possibility for a fair price



and the 10-18 has IS
I seriously LOVE having IS on my EF-M 11-22
I never thought it would be so great on an UWA but you can literally get 1/5 or even 1/2 second shots handheld!


----------



## sfunglee (May 15, 2014)

procentje20 said:


> sfunglee said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also wondering which is better :
> ...



Agreed with the weight ratio... but overall which is better?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 15, 2014)

sfunglee said:


> Agreed with the weight ratio... but overall which is better?



The significant differences are the 4mm on the long end and faster aperture of the 10-22mm, vs. the IS and lower cost of the 10-18mm. 

To answer the OP's question, based solely on Canon's published MTF charts, the 10-18mm is slightly better than the 10-22mm (and the EF-M 11-22mm is better than both). The differences are minor enough that they would likely not be very evident in real-world shooting. 

Also, bear in mind that those MTF curves are theoretical – they're calculated by computer based on the optical formulae of the lenses, not measured from actual lenses. In other words, Canon's MTF curves represent the best possible case, and for real lenses variances in production may affect performance. The 10-18mm has a plastic bayonet mount, suggesting that the production might not be as tightly controlled (but we really can't know).

More importantly, the MTF curves show sharpness and contrast, but tell us nothing about vignetting, distortion, flare control, or any of the host of other factors that impact image quality. Then there are other things like AF speed and reliability, full time manual focusing, handling, etc., any or all of which can be important in determining what one thinks is 'best'. 

So, overall which is better will depend entirely on your personal needs.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (May 18, 2014)

Terry Rogers said:


> Lets get this one started....
> 
> Looking at MTF charts alone, how much better is the 10-22 vs 10-18? If we take the charts at face value, will the 10-22 be sharper or softer? Additionally, even if the 10-18 is a little softer, with it being half the price, would it be a much better value?
> 
> Thoughts?



The new 10-18 is 2/3 stops slower but it has huge benefits like smaller, lighter, smaller filter, 3-stop IS and cheaper so no brainer (it's a steal). If you don't have UWA go for this. I had the 10-22mm and I was happy and if you have it, there is no sence to go for the new 10-18mm.


----------



## Zlyden (May 19, 2014)

I do wish that this EF-S 10-18 IS lens existed 7 years ago (in 2007, when I bought my first DSLR called 400D/XTi and EF-S 10-22 as the first additional lens for it). 

Now it just looks like Canon is trying to create the "new plastic trinity" combined of EF-S 10-18 (ultra wide) + EF-S 18-55 (standard) and + EF-S 55-250 (telephoto) lenses. 

It DOES make sense... 

I do not know how many (but I suspect that it should be around 90-95%) of entry level Rebel users never buy any additional lenses (and this DOES make sense too, since aforementioned EF-S 10-22 costs more than the camera with one or two kit lenses).

So, new UWA EF-S 10-18 is a way to introduce landscape and architecture shooting for entry-level camera users.

There are two more butts to it:

1) EOS M + EF-M 11-22 looks like a better newbie combination than EOS 100D/SL1 + EF-S 10-18;

2) Whom they are going to sell EF-S 10-22 to now? (To the guys who crave for 7DII? No chance! Since all of them are bird-shooters who do not care about UW.)

PS: Anyway, EF-S 10-22 is (or was?) the great lens with great build quality (at least not worse than that of EF 17-40/4L), while EF-S 10-18 (at least on pictures) looks like another disposable-plastic kit-lens...


----------



## AE1Pguy (May 23, 2014)

There is not much angle of view difference between a 300mm and a 304mm lens, but an enormous difference between 18mm and 22mm. Looking through my shot data, I tend to use the 10-22 at 10mm or 22mm, and not all that often in between. Meaning I would have wanted the 10-22 over the 10-18 for sure. But, depending what you shoot and how, you may have a different experience.

I find the 10-22 quite easy to carry around, so I wouldn't be too concerned about the size and weight advantage of the 10-18. Sharpness would be a wash for me too, as it looks like I tend to shoot between 5.6 and 8 with the 10-22.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2014)

AE1Pguy said:


> Looking through my shot data, *I tend to use the 10-22 at 10mm or 22mm*, and not all that often in between. Meaning I would have wanted the 10-22 over the 10-18 for sure.



That's pretty typical for zoom lens usage, not sure that it says you need 22mm as much as it says you use zooms at the ends of the range most often. Something else to check is how often those images at 22m were cropped, which says you really needed longer than 22mm. 

That common behavior using zooms at the ends of the range is something to keep in mind when making lens choices. If considering a wide prime, you may look over the EXIF of your shots with a 24-xx zoom and see lots of shots at 24mm, suggesting you should get a 24mm prime. But if you consider the image size, you may find that many of your images shot at 24mm were actually cropped to an AoV closer to 35mm, for example. That was the case for me, so I bought the 35/1.4L.


----------



## Skirball (May 28, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Terry Rogers said:
> 
> 
> > Lets get this one started....
> ...



Most of those 'huge benefits' are subjective. Even the IS is arguable. I'll concede that I'd rather have it than not, but if it's a tradeoff between that and a wider aperture not everyone is going to choose IS, especially at UWA. Add in the better build quality, distance indicator, full time manual focus, 22mm, and USM and now it's not a 'no brainer' at all. Even the smaller filter size is debateable. All my filters are 77mm, so the 10-22 wins on that account too... for me. And for the final nail in the coffin, I can currently get a 10-22 refurbished from Canon for under $400, less than a $100 difference, if I could even buy the 10-18. I'm not saying the 10-18 won't sell like hotcakes, just that the 10-22 still has its niche.


----------



## seamonster (Jun 3, 2014)

Whatever. 

They're both EF-S lenses and as we all know, Canon treats the whole EF-S line like second class citizens. I mean, for instance, how many years and iterations has it taken for the 18-55mm to perform acceptably? Not to mention that there used to be USM on it....8 years ago. Sure the optics have gotten better but I suspect that's more to do with the need for more resolving power due to the megapickle wars than them actually caring any significant amount. 

And speaking of USM, there might never be another EF-S lens released with USM and full time manual focusing again now that they've gotten stepper motors cheap enough to stuff into these things. Think on that for a minute. The pretty darn good (but $$$) 17-55mm 2.8, the solid 15-85mm and the cool 10-22mm could all lose their excellent USM when they get refreshed, regardless of better optics. And for no other reason than their mount. 

I am not posting to belittle or denigrate EF-S owners in any way, just Canon's continued practice of doing the bare minimum for the EF-S mount in general. My first DSLR was a 60D with a 18-135 and 55-250 kit and I shot the hell out of it. 

I mean, we still haven't gotten a cheap 35mm 1.8 that those Nik** guys have right?


----------



## 2n10 (Jun 3, 2014)

Zlyden said:


> 2) Whom they are going to sell EF-S 10-22 to now? (To the guys who crave for 7DII? No chance! Since all of them are bird-shooters who do not care about UW.)



Hey I have a 7D and crave the 7DII, shoot birds and have the 10-22. ;D


----------



## Dutchy (Jun 3, 2014)

I got the 10-18 yesterday. It's a nice, compact lens. I intend to use it on my 7d and 100d. 

It fills the gap between my Samyang 8mm fisheye and the Sigma 18-35 1.8 precisely. Focus speed is very good, IS is near silent. Because it's light and not so bulky I can take it with me easily, so I have it when I need it. 

Sample shots from the first two days are here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/blechdach/sets/72157645042239713/

distortion is pretty intense at 10mm, both Lightroom and DXO don't have a lens profile for it yet, hopefully that'll cpme soon enough.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 4, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Zlyden said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Whom they are going to sell EF-S 10-22 to now? (To the guys who crave for 7DII? No chance! Since all of them are bird-shooters who do not care about UW.)
> ...



+1 *(well almost)

(I have a 7D and crave the 7DII, shoot birds (lots of them!)- and landscapes (lots of this) - in my case many with my Sigma 8-16mm!

Thanks 2n10 for sharing *almost my thoughts exactly - before I did! 

I'm sticking with an APS-C for all my photography at this stage... I love the lenses I have, covering 8mm to 300mm with quality glass!


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2014)

I just posted this in a similar thread, but it might as well show up here too:

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

I want one....


----------



## whothafunk (Jun 5, 2014)

seamonster said:


> there might never be another EF-S lens released with USM and full time manual focusing again now that they've gotten stepper motors cheap enough to stuff into these things. Think on that for a minute. The pretty darn good (but $$$) 17-55mm 2.8, the solid 15-85mm and the cool 10-22mm could all lose their excellent USM when they get refreshed, regardless of better optics.


i'm pretty sure the most expensive EF-S lenses will retain USM motors.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jun 5, 2014)

I rarely shoot ultra wide, as my widest lens is 24mm (on ff). I might buy this lens with an SL1 just to throw in the bag to play around with.


----------



## fragilesi (Jun 6, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Zlyden said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Whom they are going to sell EF-S 10-22 to now? (To the guys who crave for 7DII? No chance! Since all of them are bird-shooters who do not care about UW.)
> ...



Must be damn big birds where you live ;D.

Actually I have a 70d, shoot birds, would love to be able to afford the 7dII that I imagine it will be AND have the 10-22 too!


----------



## Pieces Of E (Jun 6, 2014)

I like my 10-22 EF-S better than my 24-105L.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2014)

Terry Rogers said:


> Lets get this one started....
> 
> Looking at MTF charts alone, how much better is the 10-22 vs 10-18? If we take the charts at face value, will the 10-22 be sharper or softer? Additionally, even if the 10-18 is a little softer, with it being half the price, would it be a much better value?
> 
> Thoughts?



Looking at the first real world test. Not at all!
On photozone.de the 10-18 IQ totally blows the 10-22 out of the water. And it costs less.
Nice.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sfunglee said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed with the weight ratio... but overall which is better?
> ...



In early real world tests the differences actually do appear to be significantly in favor of the 10-18. And it costs way less and has IS. Yeah the 10-22 is a faster lens, but how important is that for most in an UWA? I bet not nearly as much as the much better optics of the new lens, the IS of the new lens, and much lower price of the new lens.


----------



## Cory (Jun 6, 2014)

I've just been enlisted to chronicle (daily) the construction of a large Veterans' Monument who's construction begins on Monday. I've also been approached just today by a realtor for some of that.
For the life of me I can't decide between the 10-18, either of the two Sigma 10-20's or the Tokina 11-16 II (although possibly slightly leaning towards the Tokina). There's also the Sigma 8-16, of course.
Can anyone tell me which one to get? I have a 70D and will more than likely stick with that for awhile and crop sensors for even longer; probably.
Thanks.


----------



## quiquae (Jul 18, 2014)

seamonster said:


> Whatever.
> 
> They're both EF-S lenses and as we all know, Canon treats the whole EF-S line like second class citizens. I mean, for instance, how many years and iterations has it taken for the 18-55mm to perform acceptably? Not to mention that there used to be USM on it....8 years ago. Sure the optics have gotten better but I suspect that's more to do with the need for more resolving power due to the megapickle wars than them actually caring any significant amount.



There was an interview with a Canon lens engineer in Japan, where he was asked for the "best" lens and "most recommended" lens. I don't remember what he said for the former--70-200 f/2.8L IS II, maybe. But for the latter, he said "EF-S 18-55 IS II. You may think we treat it lightly because it's cheap, but the reality is completely different: we assign our veteran engineers and tremendous amount of development, because what we have to do is to get quality image out of relatively few lenses and cheap components."



> And speaking of USM, there might never be another EF-S lens released with USM and full time manual focusing again now that they've gotten stepper motors cheap enough to stuff into these things. Think on that for a minute. The pretty darn good (but $$$) 17-55mm 2.8, the solid 15-85mm and the cool 10-22mm could all lose their excellent USM when they get refreshed, regardless of better optics. And for no other reason than their mount.



On my Rebel T4i, 18-135 STM and 55-250 STM's AF are as fast as a 24-105L USM in OVF mode, and much faster in live view mode. The only real downside to STM is that full-time manual focus doesn't work until the camera is awake, which is not that big of a deal.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 18, 2014)

Skirball said:


> Hjalmarg1 said:
> 
> 
> > Terry Rogers said:
> ...




I am sorry, but I have to disagree.
I owned and loved the 10-22, it is a great lens!
However, there really is very few reasons to buy it any more; good reasons, that is.

Build quality: who cares about pennies. Both have a cheap build quality, just cheap and cheap_er_. The 10-22 isn't weather sealed either, and they are both quite plasticky, and similarly likely to break in a fall. A lot has been made about metal mounts, but I am yet to see significant number of people complaining about plastic mounts breaking. 
Distance indicator and FTM: How much does one really use those in a WA lens with AF? I use it quite a bit with my Rokinon, however, but never did with my 10-22 (it has markings at 1 ft, 3 ft and infinity, by the way). Only time you might need it is when focusing at infinity (night sky, etc).
USM: Not a big difference between USM and STM in a wide angle lens with such short throw. 

Not worth paying more money and losing IS, IMO. No question about it.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Jul 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Skirball said:
> 
> 
> > Hjalmarg1 said:
> ...



I love the old 10-22mm. Yes, it isn't built like a tank. If it was, it probably would have tweaked the 7D's lens mount. It went to Canon(CPS) in 3 bags. Got it back in 3 business days. The repair was replacing everything except the front lens assembly- new mount, iris, servo, and the entire inner lens group. Cost? $59.



Canon 10-22mm Lens- forced disassembly by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 18, 2014)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I love the old 10-22mm. Yes, it isn't built like a tank. If it was, it probably would have tweaked the 7D's lens mount. It went to Canon(CPS) in 3 bags. Got it back in 3 business days. The repair was replacing everything except the front lens assembly- new mount, iris, servo, and the entire inner lens group. Cost? $59.



$ 59 to replace everything? Surely that cannot be standard pricing that applies to mere mortals like us. 
In any case, this reinforces what I said. The 10-18 is cheaper and will be more of a crumple zone 

As I said, I loved my 10-22 as well and it was one of the reasons I was balking at going FF and settling for an inferior UWA (the 16-35/4 was a distant thought back then). 
But now, someone without an UWA should have no reason to drop $ 600 on it instead of getting a 10-18 for $ 300. It IS a no-brainer.


----------

