2

The famous Canon 10-22mm lens is quite well-built. The image is sharp near the corners, and it has a fast auto-focus system.

But unfortunately, it's aperture is relatively narrow...

Would there be any very wide angle lens of comparable focal characteristics, that would have a significantly larger aperture, and that would be adaptable on Canon cameras ?

K''
  • 6,497
  • 12
  • 57
  • 96
Skippy Fastol
  • 1,269
  • 2
  • 13
  • 30
  • I have to ask, do you have trouble with taking photos because the aperture is "only" 3.5-4.5? If you're hoping to get a lot more bokeh from a 2.8 lens you should read these questions too: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/8451/is-depth-of-field-and-bokeh-influenced-by-distance-to-the-subject http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10079/can-a-smaller-sensors-crop-factor-be-used-to-calculate-the-exact-increase-in and http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/9624/what-exactly-determines-depth-of-field/9626#9626 – Håkon K. Olafsen May 02 '12 at 19:01
  • @Håkon K. Olafsen : Trouble ? Well. Let's say the subject is moving and the light is low. Don't wanna raise the ISOs. Or the light is low and I don't have a tripod. Don't wanna raise the exposure time. In those cases, yes, I'd like a larger aperture. For the bokeh, I am happy to visit the links you provided :o). Thanks !! – Skippy Fastol May 02 '12 at 19:55
  • Going from f3.5 to f2.8 only gives you about 2/3-stop. Have you considered a less wide lens with OS/IS? They give you 3-4 stops. You wont find any as wide as the 10-22, but if you can live with 17 as the widest, the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS is a very nice lens. The Canon 15-85 F/3.5-5.6 IS is a different alternative. – Håkon K. Olafsen May 02 '12 at 20:32
  • @HåkonK.Olafsen : I take note of that, and I will consider this when buying my next wide angle lens. – Skippy Fastol May 02 '12 at 20:41
  • 3
    Just note, IS/VR doesn't matter when you're subject is moving. But 2/3rds more shutter speed certain could. At 15mm, you only need 1/25th (on APS-C) to handhold steady. IS at wide angles isn't as important as telephoto. – rfusca May 02 '12 at 21:25
  • I agree. At 15mm you can dance & shoot :) – Skippy Fastol May 02 '12 at 21:42

3 Answers3

7

If your focus is Landscape and going on the title of you question alone; "Better 10-22mm lens for Canon?":

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor

From what I read in photo and landscape magazines a lot of landscape pros go through the trouble and mount this Nikon lens on a Canon body. Using an adapter ring this will give you manual focus only (i think) but that is a non issue in landscape photography (tripod and manual focusing) and when image quality and "tack sharp" is most important.

Jakub Sisak GeoGraphics
  • 6,287
  • 10
  • 52
  • 74
  • 1
    +1 - I see that a quite a bit online - that lens mounted on a Canon body. – rfusca May 02 '12 at 17:03
  • 1
    you can read about mounting a Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm on Canon EF here: http://richbui.com/2008/04/17/canon_and_the_nikkor_af-s_14-24mm_f28g_ed_n/ – K'' May 02 '12 at 18:52
6

Quality of the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 is amazing. There is one for Canon mount. You lose some on the long end but if you already have some that starts around 17mm it should be good. Otherwise maybe you look at prime lens but I have trouble finding wide and bright ones for cropped sensor. I looked too :)

Zak
  • 1,416
  • 1
  • 12
  • 18
  • Many thanks. Important question : I guess it also is fit for Full-Frame sensors ? I am nearly sure that 10-22mm for Canon is not made for them. – Skippy Fastol May 02 '12 at 14:51
  • 4
    No neither fits for full frame. There is no such wide except for fisheye for full-frame. I think the full-frame limit is 14mm otherwise too wide. Usual ultra-wide on full-frame is 16-35 or 17-35 even. – Zak May 02 '12 at 14:53
  • @Zak: The Sigma 10-20mm fits on a full-frame body, and is pretty comparable to the Canon lens, according to most reviews I've read, and I've been happy with it. Although it's a slower lens, with a maximum aperture of f4.0. – Flimzy May 02 '12 at 20:45
  • 1
    @Flimzy - It fits but does not cover the whole sensor! Plus reader is asking for wider aperture. – Zak May 02 '12 at 21:16
  • 1
    @drewbenn - I think Canon also makes a 14mm F/2.8 which is the widest I know on full-frame that covers full-frame. – Zak May 02 '12 at 21:17
  • For the record, the widest current rectilinear full-frame lens available are the Sigma 12-24mm: http://www.neocamera.com/search_lens.php?crop=1%3Amax&rectilinear=1&by=feature&focalwide=14:max - Those do have a narrow aperture and certainly not known to be top performers. – Itai May 02 '12 at 21:40
  • 1
    @drewbenn if I was a landscape shooter, that rokinon would be on my short list. Its rated fairly well actually, is a fantastic price, and MF isn't a big deal for landscape. – rfusca May 02 '12 at 22:40
3

You did specify a 10-22 lens, but if you can tolerate 15mm or 17mm in the wide end, you should consider Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS and Canon EF-S 15-85 F3.5-5.6 IS. Both are great lenses receiving good reviews.

IS will give you 3-4 stops extra, while going for the Tokina or Nikon mentioned by others with F2.8 will only give you about 2/3 of a stop in the wide end (1 1/3 in the narrow end).

Håkon K. Olafsen
  • 3,196
  • 1
  • 22
  • 41
  • Just wondering : given the fact that then lenses you mention probably can handle the Full Frame sensor, would the viewing angle be the same as a 10-22mm on a 1.6 cropping sensor ? In that case, there would be absolutely no problem to switching from a 10mm@550D to at 17mm@5DMarkII – Skippy Fastol May 02 '12 at 20:47
  • Sorry, I should have put the full name in. Both lenses only fit on cameras with APS-C sized sensor. – Håkon K. Olafsen May 02 '12 at 21:09
  • 1
    If you're willing to go full frame sensor, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 is a good option. It give you the same field of view as with the 10-22 on an APS-C camera. This will be expensive though... – Håkon K. Olafsen May 02 '12 at 21:16
  • then I have my answer. An inexpected one :). Thanks for sharing. – Skippy Fastol May 02 '12 at 21:22