The EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon’s ultra-wide angle zoom for its APS-C format DSLRs. Optically it’s a solid performer, with decent sharpness and minimal distortion. The ring-type ultrasonic focus motor gives fast, silent focusing and allows manual adjustment at any time. Like Canon’s other non-L series lenses, the hood is an optional extra.
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens
Already own this?
This item is in your gearlist!
- 10-22mm focal length
- 16-35.2mm equivalent focal length on Canon APS-C cameras
- F3.5-4.5 maximum aperture; F22-27 minimum
- Ring-type ultrasonic-type AF motor with full-time manual focusing
- 77mm filters
- 0.24m/9.45" minimum focus
- Canon EF-S mount for APS-C DSLRs
|Lens type||Zoom lens|
|Max Format size||APS-C / DX|
|Focal length||10–22 mm|
|Lens mount||Canon EF-S|
|Maximum aperture||F3.5 - F4.5|
|Minimum aperture||F22.0 - F27.0|
|Number of diaphragm blades||6|
|Aperture notes||Circular aperture|
|Special elements / coatings||Super Spectra coatings|
|Minimum focus||0.24 m (9.45″)|
|Motor type||Ring-type ultrasonic|
|Full time manual||Yes|
|Weight||385 g (0.85 lb)|
|Diameter||84 mm (3.29″)|
|Length||90 mm (3.54″)|
|Materials||Plastic barrel, metal mount|
|Zoom method||Rotary (internal)|
|Filter thread||77 mm|
|Hood product code||EW-83E|
|Optional accessories||Soft Case LP1319|
Not sharp wide open. impossible to use for architecture or landscapes at anything wider than f/10.
The best lens I own
I must say after owning first wanting this lens, could not afford it and then getting the Sigma version of this, I had to return the sigma due to performance issues and plunge into my pocket for this lens and there has been no turning back yet. One year later countless of travels with it, countless of shots with it I am really happy with it and its performance. It took me a while to master it and wield its power but it was well worth the wait I love this lens. When I was first shopping for ...
Canon EF-S 10-22mm
its a great wide angle for cropped factor cameras... sharp and good colors!
Great lens, not without its drawbacks
Pros: - Excellent range for APS-C format, 16-35mm equivalent. For a long time was my #1 travel/architecture lens - Good build quality (albeit a long way from "L" lens quality) - Light, a great "walk around" lens. Cons: - Higher priced than it should be by about 20% in my opinion - Sharpness adequate only - Contrast low. Virtually every shot requires post-processing - Small maximum aperture makes it fairly useless as a portrait lens - Moderate distortion at extremes of zoom range (although ...
Canon 60D Lens Dilemma
Hi Guys, I just bought a Canon 60D, however im not sure which lens combo to go for: 10-22 and 24-105 OR 17-55 and 70-200. I do alot of landscape stuff but sometimes i cover stage events like concerts, etc so which lens would be best for doing that kind of stuff. I'm not sure whether 105mm is long enough for covering concerts and whether 17mm is wide enough for landscapes. Thanks.
Neither, actually. While they're all fantastic lenses, there are cheaper alternatives, and you don't necessarily sacrifice anything. Instead of the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($649), you can get the Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM ($299), saving $350. Instead of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM ($1,149), you can get the Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM ($899), saving $250. Instead of the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM ($879), you can get the Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM ($519), saving $360. Instead of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM ($2,299), you can get the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD ($1,499), saving $800. If I were you, I'd substitute the 17-55 for the Sigma 17-50, and push that 10-18mm in there. Or start out with the 17-55, and perhaps add the 10-18 later, if you find 17mm isn't wide enough. Continue Reading
It may be hard to see what you will miss in test charts, but in the real world these lenses are quite different. The Sigma 17-50 OS is notorious for inconsistent AF, on the other hand the Canon 17-55 has never had any AF complaint. I consider AF accuracy to be a very important quality and basic requirement for any lens. The Tamron is shorter than Canon. You are really comparing 180mm vs 200mm. I think overall there is no need to go tamron if you shoot Canon. Continue Reading
My opinion ... I'd go with the 10-22 and the 70-200. I know that mixes up the choices you gave. I have the 10-22 and two 70-200's (both w IS, version I and II). All are super sharp. I've had close to 30 lenses. If I had to keep only one, it would be the 70-200L IS II. If you ever go full frame, that 70-200 will work on it too. There's a reason you see so many pros with this lens. I may get a 24-105 f/4 when and if a second better version comes out. i have no experience with the 17-55. That is supposed to be a great lens for a crop camera like your 60D. If you ever go full frame, it won't work on it though. (The 10-22 won't either, by the way.) Continue Reading
Which lenses are particularly suitable for Infrared photography (IR)
I plan to convert one of my Canon SLRs to IR, with a 630nm cut-off filter. I now got the information that lenses differ significantly in their suitability to IR and that this difference is not necessarily correlated with price and performance in the visible range (1) . Canon's Ef 70-200mm lenses do have an IR mark on their focus scale (2) and therefore seem to be quite suitable for IR (2) . My EF-S 55-250 mm IS unfortunately has not. Apart from this, the EF-S 17-85mm IS is my main landscape lens which I plan to use on my IR camera. I do also have the EF 100-400mm L IS, the Tamron 28-300mm VC, the Sigma 50mm Macro, the EF-S 10-22mm and the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro - are they any good for IR? So, IR photographers - which lenses (Canon or third party with Canon-fit) do you use on you IR converted Canon SLRs, and which ones can you recommend?
If you look around a bit more you will see that these lists of IR suitable lenses are VERY unreliable. The result strongly depends on how it is tested (e.g. IR-converted DSLR or just an external IR pass filter with very long exposure), what filter type is used etc. It's a first step for evaluating, nothing more. The EFS 17-85 is one of the few recent zooms that does pretty well in IR, so that is a good start. Continue Reading
If you are considering converting a dSLR to IR and it has neither magnified Live View for MF nor an RGB histogram display, then don'tbother converting it! It will be a struggle to focus a variety of lenses and exposure will be a crap shoot. Find another body that does have these features for conversion. Mike K Continue Reading
The 40D was among Canon's first Live View cameras, also I see that it has separate R,G,B histogram during image review in addition to luminance. I consider these essential features for IR photography. (from many years of frustration not having these features in an IR body). I strongly recommend not IR modifying the 20D. My extreme frustration with not having Live View and RGB histograms comes from using an IR modified D60 (not 60D), very similar in vintage to the 20D. an IR 20D will certainly yield frustration in out of focus images that are over exposed. That being said, I notice that the 40D has an older LCD with only 230k dot resolution, whereas modern Canon dSLRs (even entry level) have 1.0m dot LCDs. This lower resolution screen may often be insufficient for accurate manual focus adjustment. All zoom lenses will change their IR focus calibration upon zooming, so you can only AF calibrate one lens at one zoom position. Calibration at other zoom positions is a guess. Remember the ... Continue Reading
Help choosing an UWA for my 7D please.
I need help choosing an UWA for my 7D. I am off to the USA at the end of July (Grand Canyon, etc. etc.) and I thought it might be nice to go with something wider than my EF-S 17-85. The choices seem to be: Canon EF-S 10-22 F3.5-4.5 Canon EF-S 10-18 (due out soon) Sigma 10-20 F3.5 (I would pay the extra for this over the 4-5.6) Tokina 11-16 F2.8 Tamron 10-24 F3.5-4.5 I think I should exclude the Tokina. It's the most expensive because it goes up to f2.8 but I don't think I need that. A few reviews of the Tamron suggest it is a bit softer than the other option so maybe I can discount that one as well. So that leaves Sigma and Canon. I suppose my initial preference would be the Canon 10-22. It already available so I would get more change to try it before going that if I waited for the new 10-18 and it has a marginally larger range than the Sigma. Does anyone have any thoughts that might help. Thanks
I'd suggest the 10-18mm. It's already out, and many forum members here have one already. In fact, I got mine yesterday (a day early; was supposed to be delivered today). I've not taken any shots with it yet, but I played with it for a few minutes and was quite surprised with how fast and SILENTLY it focused. If the image quality is as good as everyone says, then it's a steal at $300. Continue Reading
Your first choice is the best one > Canon EF-S 10-22 F3.5-4.5 ....my next lens. Hoping to get one for under $500, used / refurbed, of course. Fish Here's a couple taken with my buddies 10-22 > Continue Reading
Have your own question?
"A Product, when delivered to you in new condition in its original container, is warranted against defects in materials or workmanship as follows: for a period of one (1) year from the date of original purchase, defective parts or a defective Product returned to Canon, or its authorized service providers, and proven to be defective upon inspection, will be repaired with new or comparable rebuilt parts or exchanged for a refurbished Product, as determined by Canon or the authorized service provider n their sole discretion. Replaced parts and exchanged Products will become the property of Canon."
Go to Canon USA's warranty page for more information. DPReview GearShop is an authorized Canon dealer in the United States.