Cannon 18-200

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

Since I have APS-C camera's, I also use the superb 10-22mm which is, as far as anyone is concerned, L glass in disguise.

Too bad it's not L build. My 10-22, which I bought back in the spring, is already having focusing issues. I've resorted to having to manually focus most of the time, which slows me down on the job. Hopefully I can get a replacement under warranty.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Canon 10-22 is a steamy turd, and to call it anything near L glass level is offensive

Maybe a bit harsh, but that's the one lens I wouldn't reccomend for anyone lol

I've used most of the available ultra wides for a canon body, and I consider it the more expensive, lesser performing, worst constructed option for the Canon mount.

NOW you say that. Had I read these comments six months ago, I may have purchased something different. What do you suggest that is "better" than the Canon 10-22 in terms of image quality?

[Greg P]

Originally Posted by JimThias

NOW you say that. Had I read these comments six months ago, I may have purchased something different. What do you suggest that is "better" than the Canon 10-22 in terms of image quality?

Good question. I'm thinking about getting a 10-22.

[JRMDC]

I've had nothing but positive outcomes with my 10-22.

[bigbassloyd]

I spent a weekend with a Tokina 11-16, and a Canon 10-22 courtesy of an awesome retailer that was local to me. I wanted to get the absolute best lens I could, and I had no experience with ultra wides to that point. Long story short, it didn't take the entire weekend to determine what lens I wanted, and it blew my mind because it wasn't the Canon. The Tokina was sharper at any setting, had a constant wider aperture, was better built, had a better warranty, came with a lens hood, and was cheaper. The only downside I could find was the Tokina (and as I discovered later on, the Sigmas) flare a little bit more. I don't consider the lack of focal range a downside, as I can usually take 3 steps forward

Since then, I've went on to play with quite a few ultra wides, and while I haven't found another one that beats the Tokina, I've found several that hangs with, or beats the Canon.

Tokina 11-16 f2.8, Sigma 10-20 f3.5, Sigma 8-16 f4.5 / 5.6 would be my recommendation in that order. But in all honesty, there's no need to go past the first option

Loyd L.

[magicman_841]

My only complain with the Sigma is the heavy CA at some settings. Easily fixable in post, tho.

[bigbassloyd]

CA is just one of those things that happens with any rectilinear lens. Thank goodness for post process right?

Loyd L.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I spent a weekend with a Tokina 11-16, and a Canon 10-22 courtesy of an awesome retailer that was local to me. I wanted to get the absolute best lens I could, and I had no experience with ultra wides to that point. Long story short, it didn't take the entire weekend to determine what lens I wanted, and it blew my mind because it wasn't the Canon. The Tokina was sharper at any setting, had a constant wider aperture, was better built, had a better warranty, came with a lens hood, and was cheaper. The only downside I could find was the Tokina (and as I discovered later on, the Sigmas) flare a little bit more. I don't consider the lack of focal range a downside, as I can usually take 3 steps forward

Ok, you've got my attention. I'll see if my local store carries this one.