Been offered a Canon 10-22 any good?

[PaulDCocker]

I've been offered a Canon 10-22 lens for a very good price, used but immaculate, is it a worthy purchase? Price is less than a new Sigma 10-20, would appreciate views/pics from anyone who has one of these?

[emeyedeejay]

Any good?

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_s_10-22_35-45_usm

[puddleduck]

I'd get one - I think its a (much) better lens than the rather "meh!" 17-40 y - no L moniker, but just a better lens.

[Boink!]

I should cocoa! (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%22Canon%2010-22mm%22&w=all)*
Plus, it looks so damn funky with the lens hood on.

*the last two photos are from Sworrall, if you need any more convincing.

[Sam]

My favourite lens. I love it!

[PaulDCocker]

OK convinced and for the price I am guessing I could sell it on.
Thanks for your help.

[tuttonp]

Put it like this if you can't get on with it drop me a line and I'll take it straight away!!!.

I am assuming you have an APS-C SLR body??, remember it won't fit full frame bodies

[PaulDCocker]

I have a 400D - I assume that's OK as it says it fits a 350D

[tuttonp]

No, sadly this lens will only really fit my 30D :D


It will of course fit a 400D fine :)

[Radiohead]

I'd get one - I think its a (much) better lens than the rather "meh!" 17-40 y - no L moniker, but just a better lens.

Not really comparable lenses Andy though are they - what with one being an UWA suitable only for APS-C and one being either a standard zoom or an UWA dependent on body...better to bring the Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20 or 12-24's into the debate IMO. I'd certainly take one over the Sigmas, but I've never used the Tokina so can't comment.

FWIW I consider the 17-40 anything but meh. Sharp, well-built, beautiful colours, great flare resistance and contrast, it's something of a bargain for an L.

[tuttonp]

Radiohead - There is an argument in favour of both lenses.

The 10-22 will give you the widest possible range on an APS-C camera (300D, 350D, 400D, 10D, 20D, 30D and 40D) but is not compatible if you move up to a full frame camera and is possibly not a super sharp as the L spec 17-40 (but there will be a fag paper in it for most users). The 17-40 on the other hand will give you a pretty wide angle (though no wider than the cheaper 17-85IS EF-S) on an APS-C body and is still compatible if you move up to a Full Frame camera like the 5D (but you are talking about a fivefold difference in price between the two bodies 400D vs 5D).

The descsion really is if you are planning on sticking with APS-C bodies, in which case I'd opt for the 10-22 if there is a chance you'll move to full frame go for the 17-40L.

I'm going through this very dillema right now and I'm erring on buying a 10-22 (or Sigma 10-20) for about £250ish vs spending about £1000 to chop in my 30D, Grip + 17-85 for a 5D + 24-105 as a starter

[Radiohead]

The fact that he's comparing a 10-22 with a Sigma 10-20 tells me he wants an UWA though, so I'm not sure why the 17-40 was brought into it.

[sworrall]

get it! my most used and fav lens. as boinks already put up a link i dont need to :thumbs: