# EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Image Samples



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 15, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/ef-s-10-18-f4-5-5-6-is-stm-image-samples/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/ef-s-10-18-f4-5-5-6-is-stm-image-samples/">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Canon China has posted some <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/efs1018f4556/sample.html" target="_blank">sample images</a> from the upcoming Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens. For a $300 lens, the results look very good. This may be one of those lenses all APS-C shooters end up buying. You can <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/efs1018f4556/sample.html" target="_blank">view the images here</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM $299:</strong> <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> | <strong><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></strong> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA1018.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## LuCoOc (May 15, 2014)

If it has IQ camparable to other current UWA lenses I will get one sooner or later. 250-300 $/€ street price is a good offer for such a lens, IMO.


----------



## siegsAR (May 15, 2014)

LuCoOc said:


> If it has IQ camparable to other current UWA lenses I will get one sooner or later. 250-300 $/€ street price is a good offer for such a lens, IMO.



Yeah, its a very good price and I wonder how this will perform against its tried and tested older brother the 10-22. ???
Those early images look good but I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this...
..a stop loss, slight loss on the long end, filter size and I do less video than stills.

But for those on aps-c and doesn't have an UWA yet, this could be a solid choice no doubt. Gotta wait for proper reviews.


----------



## Khufu (May 15, 2014)

Or an English language site with ~12 images; http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/EF-S/EF-S_10-18mm_f4.5-5.6_IS_STM/index.aspx

...and in a joint effort between Canon and Jessops to ultimately destroy the once-fallen-and-revived High-Street chain, they're launching this lens at £299 whilst the internets are shouting about it's delightful $299 launch price, the daft bunch of muppets.


----------



## TrabimanUK (May 15, 2014)

Khufu said:


> ...and in a joint effort between Canon and Jessops to ultimately destroy the once-fallen-and-revived High-Street chain, they're launching this lens at £299 whilst the internets are shouting about it's delightful $299 launch price, the daft bunch of muppets.



That seems to be the UK price across the board. I think that Canon have realised they can achieve a 40% markup by charging £ for $ in the UK. The same goes for the 16-35 - £1199 or $1199. Possibly because we just put up with it or the fact that the canny buggers don't let their warranty transfer continents, so you are left with the choice of pay more and have a warranty, or ship one from the USA, pay import duty, still save money and have no warranty if things go pear shaped.

Hey ho, at least we're out of the recession so can once again afford to live in "rip-off" Britain


----------



## rrcphoto (May 15, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/ef-s-10-18-f4-5-5-6-is-stm-image-samples/"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/05/ef-s-10-18-f4-5-5-6-is-stm-image-samples/">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>Canon China has posted some <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/efs1018f4556/sample.html" target="_blank">sample images</a> from the upcoming Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM lens. For a $300 lens, the results look very good. This may be one of those lenses all APS-C shooters end up buying. You can <a href="http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/efs1018f4556/sample.html" target="_blank">view the images here</a>.</p>
> <p><strong>Canon EF-S 10-18 f/4.5-5.6 IS STM $299:</strong> <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> | <strong><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></strong> | <a href="http://adorama.evyy.net/c/60085/51926/1036?u=http://www.adorama.com/CA1018.html?kbid=64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a></p>
> <p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>



16-35/4 samples:

http://www.canon.com.cn/products/camera/ef/lineup/widezoom/ef1635f4lis/sample.html


----------



## rrcphoto (May 15, 2014)

Khufu said:


> Or an English language site with ~12 images; http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/EF-S/EF-S_10-18mm_f4.5-5.6_IS_STM/index.aspx
> 
> ...and in a joint effort between Canon and Jessops to ultimately destroy the once-fallen-and-revived High-Street chain, they're launching this lens at £299 whilst the internets are shouting about it's delightful $299 launch price, the daft bunch of muppets.



see i'm not sure why people cry about this.

the UK market isn't the US market, and obviously canon can streamline costs and operations far more. not to mention, Im' sure they feel they have to have a certain pricing model in the US.

This lens costs in Japan 46000 yen - the native country where it's made, it's not made the US. so why do some care what it costs in the states as if canon's marking up in other countries? 

46000 yen = 270 sterling

it just so happens that 46000 Yen = 450 USD, which I'm sure canon looks at and goes, no we have to drop the price down for this market. that's their prerogative. 

I mean heck if you are going to bemoan a companies practices, at least get your facts straight.


----------



## Azathoth (May 15, 2014)

I wonder if this will be better and cheaper than my Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6....


----------



## Dutchy (May 15, 2014)

Khufu said:


> they're launching this lens at £299 whilst the internets are shouting about it's delightful $299 launch price, the daft bunch of muppets.


The muppet reference made me smile, thanks for that! 

Here in the Netherlands (and other € countries) it's introduced at €269 (218.99 GBP according to Google). Shipping within the European Union is exempt from import duties, so you could try and find a Dutch shop willing to ship to the UK. I assume the warranty Canon has in Europe is a "European" one?

Overview of shops in The Netherlands and their prices: 
http://www.kieskeurig.nl/zoeken/index.html?q=canon+EF-S+10-18


----------



## Tom W (May 15, 2014)

Very interesting....

I can do ultra-wide with the 16-35 II on the 5D3 and it's great. But, the best I can do on the Rebel is the manual-focus 14 mm Bower. And manually focusing on the Rebel isn't really easy for my old eyes through the viewfinder.

I'd chalk this lens up to a great performer at a reasonable price, kind of like the 40/2.8. Which I bought. Didn't need a 40, I have several ways to get a similar focal length, but I bought it anyway. It now sits happily on the 10D that I bought back from the person to whom I sold it several years ago. My first DSLR.

As for those images from the 16-35/4, holy carp on a cracker. Very interesting also!


----------



## cellomaster27 (May 15, 2014)

They look pretty good! Keep in mind that the photos posted.. Most are using around f8. Much higher than wide open. 

Comparing just specs.. The 10-22mm has USM, whole stop wider, more range, metal mount(better build quality?), distance scale, better placement of zoom and focus rings (imo). The 10-18mm has IS, STM (much slower than USM), less range, much slower, plastic mount. Price differences are significant but, think I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer. 
Really liking the sharp and contrasty pics though!


----------



## siegsAR (May 15, 2014)

cellomaster27 said:


> They look pretty good! Keep in mind that the photos posted.. Most are using around f8. Much higher than wide open.
> 
> Comparing just specs.. The 10-22mm has USM, whole stop wider, more range, metal mount(better build quality?), distance scale, better placement of zoom and focus rings (imo). The 10-18mm has IS, STM (much slower than USM), less range, much slower, plastic mount. Price differences are significant but, think I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer.
> Really liking the sharp and contrasty pics though!



Yeah, mine too. I'm mostly shooting landscape w/ it and the 70D and if I want to upgrade somewhere down the long road, I'd go full frame plus an EF UWA.

Yet the 10-18mm is looking good IMO, mainly the price, STM + DPAF(future rebels?) for video works, and being an entry-level for canon. Lets see how this will compare w/ 3rd party UWAs' in its segment.

By the way:


----------



## mrsfotografie (May 15, 2014)

Looks like a FUN lens for aps-c users!!! Thankfully I'm immune to EF crop lenses now so that saves me from a little bit of GAS


----------



## lholmes549 (May 16, 2014)

Did someone really question why people in the UK are annoyed at the marked up prices and then go on to prove that the UK is paying a good sum more than all other countries as back up for their point...?
I have never bought a camera or lens in a UK high street shop and that is the reason why. I will go in and try out everything in Jessops as it's the best way to get a feel of a camera/lens, but I'll buy it off Amazon or the likes.


----------



## pj1974 (May 16, 2014)

Tom W said:


> Very interesting....
> 
> I can do ultra-wide with the 16-35 II on the 5D3 and it's great. But, the best I can do on the Rebel is the manual-focus 14 mm Bower. And manually focusing on the Rebel isn't really easy for my old eyes through the viewfinder.
> 
> ...




Hi Tom

I’m curious what you mean, so I’ll ask (neutrally) – when you wrote ‘can do ultra-wide with 16-35mm on 5D3’ but ‘best .. on Rebel is the man focus 14 Bower’… do you mean, these are your current lenses? Or lenses that meet a certain criteria for you? Have you tried other UWA lenses on your cameras?

I have used the 17-40mm L on FF (borrowing a FF), and quite liked it – but the corner sharpness (even when stopped down) did not match what lenses designed for APS-C could achieve in the corners. The 16-35mm L was too big and expensive for my liking. I don’t need or use f/2.8 for UWA anyway. F/5.6 is plenty for what I use and need.

On my 7D I have used a Canon 10-22mm (borrowed) and owned a decent copy of the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6, which was ‘reasonably’ sharp –at the corners. I now own the notably better Sigma 8-16mm, which is definitely sharper – even at 8mm in the corners, and has much lower CA than either the Canon 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20mm versions. Plus that extra 2mm makes a real distance… I love ultra wide landscapes in particular!

I am impressed by the MTF charts for both Canon’s new UWA lenses – well done Canon, and at decent prices (esp the 10-18mm STM’s price). I don’t plan on replacing my Sigma 8-16mm even though I’d love it to have IS/OS (it’s just that good optically… plus still the widest zoom UWA lens available). But I’m glad for others… and particularly can imagine many landscape photographers will be very happy with the EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS (and it will probably also be very good for many others eg architecture, etc).

Happy shooting everyone!

Paul


----------



## wickidwombat (May 16, 2014)

looks like an excellent partner for the 15-85


----------



## Ruined (May 16, 2014)

If I was a crop owner, I'd rather have the EF-S 10-22


----------



## rrcphoto (May 16, 2014)

lholmes549 said:


> Did someone really question why people in the UK are annoyed at the marked up prices and then go on to prove that the UK is paying a good sum more than all other countries as back up for their point...?
> I have never bought a camera or lens in a UK high street shop and that is the reason why. I will go in and try out everything in Jessops as it's the best way to get a feel of a camera/lens, but I'll buy it off Amazon or the likes.



obviously you fail at reading. the prices aren't marked up.

You are paying the same as the people in japan are.

canon isn't a US company - or do they not know that over there?


----------



## preppyak (May 16, 2014)

Tom W said:


> But, the best I can do on the Rebel is the manual-focus 14 mm Bower. And manually focusing on the Rebel isn't really easy for my old eyes through the viewfinder.


There is actually a pretty long list of high quality and affordable UWA's for APS-C, with the Bower being kind of low on te list of them. The Tokina 11-16 and Canon 10-22 already exist in the $500 range for example


Ruined said:


> If I was a crop owner, I'd rather have the EF-S 10-22


I actually get this lens in the same way I get the 18-55 and 55-250 existing. Sure, there are better options in the $4-500 range for that focal length, and WAY better options in the $800+ range, but if its something you'll use sparingly, a $200ish lens is a good option. The retail price of the 55-250 is $350, but you can regularly find it used on and on sale at half that price. So, in a year, people will have a <$200 wide angle option on APS-C. Which is kind of cool. 

If people need the extra light for stars or street shooting, they'd go Tokina. If they want sharpness and flare control, there's the 10-22. If they want something for rare occurrences, there's this.


----------



## wsmith96 (May 16, 2014)

this looks like a nice lens, but not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22. I do think that this completes a nice lens line up for beginners and semi pro's who want an inexpensive kit covering 16-400mm FF equivalent.

looks like a winner to me. wonder how long until you can get a rebel bundled with 3 stm lenses, bag, extra battery, and cleaning kit.


----------



## Khufu (May 16, 2014)

rrcphoto said:


> lholmes549 said:
> 
> 
> > Did someone really question why people in the UK are annoyed at the marked up prices and then go on to prove that the UK is paying a good sum more than all other countries as back up for their point...?
> ...



Dude, I try to stay off the internet when I've been drinking...

To state what's obvious to others, if perhaps not yourself; you've just posted figured to confirm that both the Japanese and US prices are less than, not equal to, the UK price, followed by another kind poster letting us know that it's also cheaper in the Netherlands. 

It appears that your desire to appear to be an elite, admirable fountain of knowledge surpasses your inclination to avoid coming across as an arrogant, clueless, contradictory prick. I didn't need to put that so childishly but you started it.


----------



## rrcphoto (May 16, 2014)

Khufu said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > lholmes549 said:
> ...



oh i'm sorry i figured you could do the math of VAT + a value and come up with a value to which you'd find that, no, it's not.

so in case you can't .. 46000 Yen = 270 sterling = 324 sterling. in actuality you pay less than the people in that country that made it. however it's probably equals out close enough.

people are using the USD and saying canon or company A is gouging. Well, it may be; UK is certainly a more expensive place to do business AND on top of that you are a limited market, so you would be not benefiting as much from volume.

however, it's hard to argue when you don't use the country that manufactured the item's native currency to do the math - would you not agree?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 16, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> For a $300 lens, the results look very good. This may be one of those lenses all APS-C shooters end up buying.


Indeed! I think for many people this 10-18 IS STM and the 18-135 IS STM are the only 2 lenses the'd ever need ... for the price & performance, those 2 lenses, (plus the 40 f/2.8 or the 50 f/1.8 ) will add a lot of value for people who shoot with the rebel & xxD cameras. Good move by Canon!


----------



## lol (May 16, 2014)

Am I being silly or are there bigger sample images available yet?


It has been a while since I was in US or JP, but from memory prices in both countries exclude sales tax right? What is the "going rate"? UK £300 ex. VAT would be £250.

As for comparing prices to the US for a JP company, that can work. If you look at currency conversions, it all balances out. If it didn't, people would exploit those differences by changing money between them and make a profit.

I don't know about other countries, but historically in the UK, lenses seem to be released at full RRP for pre-orders and shortly after launch. Depending on availability and market forces, it will tend to quickly drop to a more reasonable street level after some time. The bigger question is how much and when, but you tend to see faster drops early on, before the slower drop or even flat price over the longer term. I don't know if there is much of this effect in other countries also.

Back to the lens itself, I find myself likely to get one. I used to have the old variable aperture Sigma before I was on Canon and never got round to replacing it, making do with a fisheye instead. Not quite the same I'll admit. To me personally, the speed difference is not significant as I'll be using it around f/8 anyway for more depth of field and better sharpness across the frame. It will be used more at the wide end than long end so I wont miss that. Focus speed? Is that really important for a UWA? Give it a little time and it will be half the price of the 10-22, and I don't think you can complain about the value there.

Side note: for the 10-22's money, I'd rather be looking at the Sigma 8-16 anyway...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 16, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> looks like an excellent partner for the 15-85


+1


----------



## mb66energy (May 16, 2014)

lol said:


> Am I being silly or are there bigger sample images available yet?
> 
> [...]



There are bigger samples if you click the link below the image in its caption - just right from the number of the picture which is in a readable "language". (I just hovered with the mouse over the caption to see if there is something more representative ... and found it.)

They are some 20 MPix large so they might be taken with EOS 6D and EOS 70D ...


----------



## moreorless (May 16, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> looks like an excellent partner for the 15-85



I'm guessing more like an add on for the 18-55mm given the build and price.

Very smart move by Canon IMHO since by US prices especially(I won't be surprised to see UK prices come down to £260ish in a few months) its offering UWA cheaper than anyone else.


----------



## lol (May 16, 2014)

mb66energy said:


> There are bigger samples if you click the link below the image in its caption - just right from the number of the picture which is in a readable "language". (I just hovered with the mouse over the caption to see if there is something more representative ... and found it.)
> 
> They are some 20 MPix large so they might be taken with EOS 6D and EOS 70D ...


Thanks. Picked a few at random, exif says they're taken with the Kiss X7 (100D). Samples lacked a little punch but easily fixed by a tad more sharpening... think I might get one sooner than later at this rate!


----------



## neech7 (May 16, 2014)

"I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."

"I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer" 

"not nice enough for me to switch from my 10-22"

Typical responses from owners of existing lenses that are 'threatened' by the new lens. Same kind of resposnes from owners of 24-105 when the 24-70 f/4 was introduced, and the 70-200 f/2.8 owners when the Mark II was introduced.

Without any reviews, these folks were able to determine that the new lens is inferior to what they already own. Impartial conclusions, or divertiture aversion?


----------



## wickidwombat (May 16, 2014)

i'm gonna keep an eye on discounts of this lens and snap one up for my parents for sure as they don't have an UWA at the moment and IS for them is gold even on a wide angle its much more forgiving for older and inexperienced photographers


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2014)

neech7 said:


> "I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."
> 
> "I'll be keeping my 10-22mm for a bit longer"
> 
> ...



Or, maybe these folks are right on this one. The 24-70 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 II were more expensive that what was previously offered. The 70-200 II was an upgraded version, whereas the 24-70 trades focal length for some IQ and macro capabilities, but it still costs more. This one is designed to be slower and to cost less than what is in the market (10-22). The MTF charts don't look radically different, so at the end of the day it may come down to IS and price versus aperture, build quality.


----------



## moreorless (May 17, 2014)

Again my guess is that this lens isn't really aimed at existing 10-22mm owners, in the US your looking at double the price for that lens relative to the 10-18mm.

The 10-18mm seems best matched for rebel users and I think its allowed Canon to get a march on its rivals here as up until now UWA has always been priced at a premium on ASPC or indeed m43.


----------



## neech7 (May 17, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> neech7 said:
> 
> 
> > "I highly doubt I'd sidegrade my 10-22mm for this..."
> ...



You see the same kind of reaction from existing 16-35 f/2.8 II owners when the 16-35 f/4 IS was announced on the same day. Now this one is a cheaper and slower lens. How do you explain that? It's a cheaper lens that has IS and a better MTF chart, despite losing out in other areas. Perhaps that lens was to replace the 17-40, but 16-35 f/2.8 II owners feel the need to defend their choice of lens as well.

As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.


----------



## bainsybike (May 17, 2014)

neech7 said:


> As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.



Where did you find the MTF chart for the 11-22?


----------



## rs (May 17, 2014)

neech7 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > neech7 said:
> ...


First of all, the plastic mount, slower aperture and slower AF are all pretty big pills to swallow on top of the reduced focal length range - all issues people with 24-105's didn't have to contemplate when looking at the 24-70/4.

And secondly, the MTF charts look pretty damn similar at f8. Comparing the performance at any other aperture is impossible with the data so far - one MTF shows 10mm f3.5 performance and the other 10/4.5. Who's to say what's Canon's simulated MTF of the 10-22 looks like at 10mm when stopped down to 4.5? And at the long end it's even harder to compare due to different aperture and focal length.

This lens is a great addition to the lineup. But it is clearly part of the plastic mount, STM, budget lineup. Not the premium EF-S lens range. The budget range is now looking pretty spectacular, and the premium range is getting a little bit old, but you don't hear of many people preferring the really sharp 18-55 STM over the 17-55. They're just not in the same ball park.


----------



## dcm (May 17, 2014)

bainsybike said:


> neech7 said:
> 
> 
> > As for MTF charts, I can easily put it another way, of the 3 crop sensor Canon UWAs, the 10-22 is the WORST performing, beaten by the 11-22 and 10-18 that are both cheaper and IS equipped.
> ...



http://www.canon.com.hk/en/product/catalog/productItemDetails.do?prrfnbr=200684


----------



## bainsybike (May 17, 2014)

dcm said:


> bainsybike said:
> 
> 
> > neech7 said:
> ...



Thanks!


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2014)

neech7 said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > neech7 said:
> ...



Actually I don't see the 16-35 f/2.8 vs. f/4 IS discussion nearly as contentious as the 24-70 f/4 IS or the 5DII vs. 6D. I don't think 16-35 II users feel the need to defend the 16-35 II versus the 16-35 f/4. For those of us (me included) that have it, if you need f/2.8, then the 16-35 II is your only choice. But I'm considering swapping the f/2.8 for the 16-35 f/4 IS, just like many in this forum. Would I prefer a 16-35 f/2.8 III that is as good if not better than the 16-35 f/4? Yes, but then it's not out yet (if ever), so that is not a choice for now.

And too bad you can't use the 11-22 except on the M, so that is not germane to the discussion. And no, the MTFs are not that different between the 10-22 and the 10-18. Losing 1 stop on APS-C is a much bigger deal than on FF. 

I do think the 10-22 and 17-55 will be replaced and those will be much better than the 10-18, but those aren't out yet, and you're comparing new lenses to those nearly 10 years old.


----------



## Etienne (May 19, 2014)

The best UWA for APS-C is still the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's a narrow range, but you get lots of light and it's sharp. Why settle for lower image quality, and less light? YMMV


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 19, 2014)

Etienne said:


> The best UWA for APS-C is still the Tokina 11-16 2.8. It's a narrow range, but you get lots of light and it's sharp. Why settle for lower image quality, and less light?



How do you know the IQ of the Tokina is superior to the new Canon 10-18mm?

Also…for static subjects, 4 stops of IS beats 2 stops of light.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 1, 2014)

So, I'd thought I'd stop by my local store to see when these would be coming in...and to my surprise, they already had some! Long story short, I walked out with one. I do not have any experience with the 10-22, although I do have the 11-22 for the EOS M (and the 16-35 2.8 for FF).

First impressions...

- The one thing that jumped out at me immediately is how LIGHT this thing is...definitely easy on the arms - balances well on the SL1, too. Great size for traveling.

- Unlike the 16-35 (and 10-22, I believe), but similar to the 11-22, this is NOT an internal zooming lens...the barrel is slightly extended at 10mm, retracts into the body until about 15mm and then extends again SLIGHTLY until 18mm. It barely extends out, though - probably a centimeter at most. 

- This has the "STM" focusing mechanism just like all of Canon's newer entry-level lenses...mainly optimized for video. It is virtually silent in a normal environment (in a super-quiet room, you CAN hear a faint, high-pitched whine as the lens focuses). 

- The filter size is 67mm, and the front thread (?) does not rotate when focusing.

- For those that have the M + adapter: there is a noticeable difference in FOV between 11mm and 10mm (this lens can go wider), and this lens is light enough so this could be another UWA option to consider.
_______________

So, overall thoughts...

Positives

- Light, compact, easy for travel

- Very good center sharpness throughout the range

- IS works well (I was able to get keepers down to 1/4...for those using it with a 70D or larger camera you can likely do better)

- Very affordable at $300, and very high price/performance ratio

Negatives

- Some edge/corner softness observed, particularly at 10mm

- Purple fringing showed up in a few of my shots (wide end)

__________________

So...I think that this is a great lens for the money, although those looking for top UWA performance will want to look elsewhere (and likely will, anyway). Compared to the 11-22, I found the 10-18 to be softer near the corners...but that's more of a testament to how outstanding the 11-22 is, more so than a condemnation of the 10-18. Compared to the 16-35 on FF, the difference between center and corner sharpness seems less drastic on the 10-18. Unfortunately I cannot compare it to the 10-22, so I'll leave that one to someone else...

In the end, I wasn't blown away...then again, I didn't necessarily expect to be. But it is what it is - an entry-level/travel-sized UWA lens, and for $300, I'm not going to complain too much. It is plenty good enough for vacation snapshots and casual shooting. I can be pretty demanding when it comes to IQ, anyway.


----------

