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



## contrastny (Dec 12, 2010)

I 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.

I plan to upgrade to a 7D in a year, if canon comes out with a 7D Mark II. 

I just don't want to get stuck with a bunch of EF-S lenses if I ever upgrade to a FF in a 2 years or so.


----------



## niko (Dec 12, 2010)

You kind of have 2 conflicting goals - having an APS-C wide angle lens for landscapes and a FX lens (which by the way gives you a range which is already have covered by your 15-85mm). 

The widest FX lenses (Sigma's 12-24 and Canon's 14mm) are only ~19-22mm on APS-C which is wide, but nowhere close to Canon's 10-22mm or Sigma's 8-16mm.

As far as quality, the APS-C lenses are generally very good to excellent (both Canon and Sigma) and differences between lenses are minimal to non-existent at the small apertures used to shoot landscapes.


----------



## contrastny (Dec 12, 2010)

Thanks. Yeah, if the quality of the 10-22 wasn't close to the 16-35, I wouldn't get either of them, until I got a FF camera then I would pick up the 16-35 f/2.8.

I heard the 10-22 has distortion at 10 to 12mm, so I'm not sure if it's worth spending all of that money for an extra 3mm wider, since I already have a EF-S 15-85mm which I'm happy with.


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 13, 2010)

I don't know how the EF-S 10-22mm compares to the EF 16-35L on APS-C in the focal range where they overlap, but overall, the 10-22mm is very well regarded and I don't think you would disappointed by it. There are plenty of professional online reviews you can consult if you're uncertain.

If you're anyway planning to stay with APS-C for some time, I think it's a *bad* idea to insist on FF lenses and not take advantage of the EF-S format at the wide end (lighter, cheaper). My advice is to sell your EF-S lenses when/if you make the APS-C to FF switch. You will not lose _that_ much money, and the money will be well spent. There is no current Canon FF lens on the APS-C able to compete with the EF-S 10-22mm at the wide end.


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 13, 2010)

Everything I've read says the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is the best APS-C ultra-wide lens out there. It's cheaper than the Canon and faster as well with a fixed 2.8 across the zoom range.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tokina-11-16mm-f-2.8-AT-X-Pro-DX-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 13, 2010)

KyleSTL said:


> Everything I've read says the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is the best APS-C ultra-wide lens out there.



"Best" in some areas, but not all. Looking at the review you linked to, the Canon seems obviously sharper in the corners already from f/3.5, while the Tokina becomes similarly sharp only at f/5.6 (and is very soft at f/2.8 ). The MM of the Tokina is very low, and the chromatic aberrations not very well controlled. I agree that the light gathering power and lower price makes the Tokina a very attractive option, but not best in all areas.


----------



## niko (Dec 13, 2010)

The tokina also lacks in contrast and color saturation, but this is the case with most 3rd party lens offerings. The canons simlpy excel here.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2010)

I actually own the Tokina and highly recommend it. It's sharp, fast and very well-built. Only downside is it requires a pretty huge filter (and since it's wide angle, you have to buy the special thin wide-angle filters).


----------



## mjardeen (Dec 13, 2010)

The 10-22 is an amazing lens and as close to an L as any crop lens. I owned it when I shot cropped and moved to it from the 12-24 Tokina which I liked. It's all in what can you afford. You would be wasting your money on the L lens for what you can do with it. If I had not bought a 5D and moved to the 17-40mm Æ’4L I would still be shooting with that lens. I bought and sold mine on Craigslist for around $550.


----------



## tzalmagor (Dec 13, 2010)

I think the difference between 10mm and 16mm is so big, you shouldn't compare them, unless you consider buying the 16-35 with an FF body.

My impression from reviews is that the 16-35 is a so-so lens (not bad, but not great either), while the 10-22 is a very good lens. Having owned the 10-22, I can say I was happy with it.

Another option is the new Sigma 8-16 - the reviews I've read seem to indicate it's at least as good as the Canon 10-22

Regarding the Sigma 12-24, it has flare issues. I wish Sigma make 12-24 mark II about as good as it's new APS-C 8-16 sister.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2010)

contrastny said:


> Thanks. Yeah, if the quality of the 10-22 wasn't close to the 16-35, I wouldn't get either of them, until I got a FF camera then I would pick up the 16-35 f/2.8.
> 
> I heard the 10-22 has distortion at 10 to 12mm, so I'm not sure if it's worth spending all of that money for an extra 3mm wider, since I already have a EF-S 15-85mm which I'm happy with.



The IQ of the 10-22mm is L-quality, and similar in terms of sharpness although the 16-35mm II has a very (very!) slight edge in terms of color and contrast. 

Distortion? Yes, any ultrawide angle lens has barrel distortion. But the 10-22mm at 10mm has substantially less barrel distortion than the 16-35mm at 16mm (on a crop body; the difference is even greater on FF). If you're looking for the UWA zoom with the least distortion, the Canon 10-22mm on a crop body is the best option. 

Do you think your 15-85mm lens distorts at the wide end? The 10-22mm has a lot less. To hang some numbers on it, the 15-85mm has ~3.1% barrel distortion at 15mm, while the 10-22mm has only 1.2% barrel distortion at 10mm.

Personally, I think the combination of the 16-35mm and a 5DII that I use now delivers better images than the 10-22mm on a 7D that I had previously - but not much better, and the former combination is nearly $2K more expensive than the latter combination. 

Bottom line, the 10-22mm is an excellent lens, and if you want wider than your current 15-85mm it's your only real option from Canon until you get a FF body. Incidentally, when I got the 5DII and 16-35mm II, I sold my 10-22mm for $50 less than I paid for it (bought during a rebate - like the one available right now - and sold when there wasn't a rebate).


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 13, 2010)

epsiloneri said:


> "Best" in some areas, but not all. Looking at the review you linked to, the Canon seems obviously sharper in the corners already from f/3.5, while the Tokina becomes similarly sharp only at f/5.6 (and is very soft at f/2.8 ). The MM of the Tokina is very low, and the chromatic aberrations not very well controlled. I agree that the light gathering power and lower price makes the Tokina a very attractive option, but not best in all areas.


You're right, after I posted the comment I read through the whole article (instead of the quick once-over I did previously). It definitely has some strong points, but week points, too. The Canon has the edge overall sharpness, contrast and focus speed/accuracy, but the Tokina is not far behind and is the only lens to offer a 2.8 aperture on any mount. Other reviews I had read before the one I posted stated the Tokina ruled in all areas (but were far less in-depth and maybe even questionable on the technical side). Good to know the Canon has grounds for its premium price.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 14, 2010)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a highly regarded optic.

"If I ever upgrade to FF" strikes me as looking too far to the future...what's to say you'd be "stuck" with a 17-55mm f/2.8 in a few years? They should be popular on the secondhand market, and you aren't stuck with a lens with a restrictive field of view in the meantime. The extra 1mm you gain on the wide end is going to help less than going with the extra many mm on the tele end of the 17-55mm. APS-C bodies keep getting better, and while FF certainly has its advantages, the evidence seems to be that the EF-s wide to standard 17-55mm is as good as the FF offerings, and in fact better much of the time. It's not weather sealed if you need that, but it does have a wider range...and IS. If I didn't go with a telephoto zoom this year I would've gotten one without a second thought.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 14, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a highly regarded optic.
> 
> The extra 1mm you gain on the wide end is going to help less than going with the extra many mm on the tele end of the 17-55mm. APS-C bodies keep getting better, and while FF certainly has its advantages, the evidence seems to be that the EF-s wide to standard 17-55mm is as good as the FF offerings, and in fact better much of the time. It's not weather sealed if you need that, but it does have a wider range...and IS.



I guess because the OP already mentioned having an EF-S 15-85mm lens, and for landscape use the slow and variable aperture isn't really a problem. I interpreted the OP's desire as something wider but less distorted (the 16-35mm isn't wider, but not really much narrower either - but it is more distorted). The 17-55mm is a bit narrower, and less distorted, but the 10-22mm handles distortion even better.


----------



## kennykodak (Dec 14, 2010)

i recently did a group shot of 125 people. they were on a stair case and was on a step ladder on a catwalk looking down on them. the lighting was a bank of Elinchroms giving me f/9 @ iso 200. i used two cameras for insurance.
a. Hasselblad H3DII-39 with a 50mm lens.
b. Canon 5DII with the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.
the client wanted an 8x10 for each person in the photo. i let the client pick and she chose a Canon image.
that speaks very highly for Canon.


----------



## contrastny (Dec 14, 2010)

Thanks for all of the comments. I think I'm going to get the 10-22 just after the holidays. 

Additionally, all of my round filters will fit this lens as I bought them larger, in case I ever got this lens. I just use an adapter ring when they are being used on my 15-85mm.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 15, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, which is a highly regarded optic.
> ...


Y'know, I did see that, but it didn't register - mainly due to the 17-55mm's reputation for better quality. But it's not worth buying a duplicate lens over. And looking at the 15-85mm again, it looks like a pretty compelling alternative to the 17-55mm, especially since it has 30mm more at the long end and 2mm more at the wide (which is a somewhat noteworthy difference, and you aren't paying more for it).

I have to agree with the OP's decision; the 10-22mm is an interesting and useful option. Personally, when I was considering a wide to normal zoom (I went for short to long telephoto), I was also tempted by the 16-35mm II (which the 10-22mm duplicates for EF-S) over the 10-22mm, but it's also a much more expensive optic. And from what I've seen the quality is not quite the same as some other lenses - not surprising as it's a zoom of course (but even then it seems the 17-55mm is better, which for mentioning this lens is another reason I was stuck on the 17-55mm which appears more versatile and all-around superior to the 16-35mm on APS-C). (And I'm talking about the TS-E 24mm which is in an entirely different class altogether - it's apparently sharper at similar apertures than the f/1.4 24mm.)

Anyway, enough rambling from me, enjoy the choice!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> And looking at the 15-85mm again, it looks like a pretty compelling alternative to the 17-55mm, especially since it has 30mm more at the long end and 2mm more at the wide (which is a somewhat noteworthy difference, and you aren't paying more for it).



The optical quality of the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is on par with the 17-55mm f/2.8, except the 15-85mm has more barrel distortion at the wide end (excepted with the broader zoom range). So, the trade offs are aperture, zoom range, and cost. In that situation, I generally prefer the lens with a wider aperture; but, for someone who shoots outdoors much of the time, or has an external Speedlite and doesn't mind using it indoors, the 15-85mm is a good choice.



Edwin Herdman said:


> Personally, when I was considering a wide to normal zoom (I went for short to long telephoto), I was also tempted by the 16-35mm II (which the 10-22mm duplicates for EF-S) over the 10-22mm, but it's also a much more expensive optic. And from what I've seen the quality is not quite the same as some other lenses - not surprising as it's a zoom of course (but even then it seems the 17-55mm is better, which for mentioning this lens is another reason I was stuck on the 17-55mm which appears more versatile and all-around superior to the 16-35mm on APS-C). (And I'm talking about the TS-E 24mm which is in an entirely different class altogether - it's apparently sharper at similar apertures than the f/1.4 24mm.)



Yeah, I can't see using the 16-35mm f/2.8 as a walkaround lens on APS-C - too short, for one thing, and too much money paid for corner performance that's sacrificed on a 1.6x crop body. However, it's a good option on FF (I have one for my 5DII, and the proceeds from selling my 10-22mm helped offset the cost of the UWA zoom). 

The TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II is truly a wonderful lens - tack sharp, great for architectural shots and landscapes - I'm having a lot of fun with it!


----------



## mjardeen (Dec 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## Admin US West (Dec 15, 2010)

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."


----------



## bvukich (Dec 15, 2010)

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.
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## epsiloneri (Dec 15, 2010)

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.


----------



## contrastny (Dec 15, 2010)

[/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.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2010)

> 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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## mjardeen (Dec 17, 2010)

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.


----------



## fximaging (Dec 17, 2010)

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.


----------



## mjardeen (Dec 18, 2010)

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.


----------

