EF-S 10-18mm review

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Good stuff...I think I will save my pennies for the 16-35LIS. But for 10mm, I didn't see anything that my EF-M 11-22 can't do just as well. Cheers.

It wasn't meant to replace the EF-M 11-22 or compete with it. It was designed as a good quality inexpensive UWA for crop sensor DSLRs. The quality of the EF-M 11-22 is insignificant for users of the 100D, 700D, 70D, 7D, etc. The quality of the EF-S 10-18 is important.

Wrong. I own a 650D. It does matter, and it does make a difference to me. For someone in my shoes who also owns an M--and I am not the only one--the new lens offers on paper nothing over the other lens except 10mm and price, but since I already own the other lens price is removed from the equation.

So, how well does your EF-M 11-22 work on your 650D?

You are again looking at this as someone who doesn't own an M, but whether you believe or like it, or not, there are Canon shooters out there who own an M, and for them, it is a real choice between the 10-18 and 11-22.

Just because it is irrelevant FOR YOU, doesn't mean we can't talk about it here.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Good stuff...I think I will save my pennies for the 16-35LIS. But for 10mm, I didn't see anything that my EF-M 11-22 can't do just as well. Cheers.

It wasn't meant to replace the EF-M 11-22 or compete with it. It was designed as a good quality inexpensive UWA for crop sensor DSLRs. The quality of the EF-M 11-22 is insignificant for users of the 100D, 700D, 70D, 7D, etc. The quality of the EF-S 10-18 is important.

Wrong. I own a 650D. It does matter, and it does make a difference to me. For someone in my shoes who also owns an M--and I am not the only one--the new lens offers on paper nothing over the other lens except 10mm and price, but since I already own the other lens price is removed from the equation.

So, how well does your EF-M 11-22 work on your 650D?

To put it bluntly, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Leigh A. Wax wrote:

Makes it clear as to why the 10-22 will remain in the "line-up"!

Leigh

www.leighwax.com

Why? In what way does it make it clear?

Genuine enquiry, since I don't have a 10-22 to test...

It is anything but clear. The 10-22 is bigger, heavier, more expensive, has worse IQ, and is less suitable for video due to lack of IS and STM.

There will always be some who will defend the older lens for no other reason than they already own the old lens.

I remember when the 70-200 II was first introduced, Mark I owners were saying: "the current lens is so good there's no way Canon could've made it better. I'm keeping my Mark I forever."

Well, Canon proved them wrong and many finally did move on to the new lens.

EvokeEmotion wrote:

There will always be some who will defend the older lens for no other reason than they already own the old lens.

... and want to sell it for good money in order to get the new one

Right on. You never know the true motivation of some folks who diss the new lens before it has been thoroughly tested.

Thanks for this review and samples.  I was debating on getting this lens and you clinched the decision for me.

M

Hi Keith,

Tnx for the review.

Seems like a good value lens to me.

Regards, Sandor.

PS maybe few more raw files with apertures to around f8 to see what the lens is really up to ?

Keith, I was just about to buy the 10-22 when the 10-18 was anounced. I've been waiting to see what the opinions were. Do you have experience with the 10-22? If so how do you think they compare?

Exactly. With my SL1 and the10-18 paired with my 18-135 STM I can have a 16-216 equivalent FOV system that weighs less than 2.5 pounds.

I'm 66 years old and as much as I would love a full frame system, I would never use it because I wouldn't want to lug it around.

jvceac wrote:

Keith, I was just about to buy the 10-22 when the 10-18 was anounced. I've been waiting to see what the opinions were. Do you have experience with the 10-22? If so how do you think they compare?

Sorry - I've only had the 100D for a few months and have only really used full frame since my first DSLR (a 1Ds in 2004)

I suspect we'll have to wait for the lab based reviews for some firmer detail.

maarensv wrote:

Hi Keith,

Tnx for the review.

Seems like a good value lens to me.

Regards, Sandor.

PS maybe few more raw files with apertures to around f8 to see what the lens is really up to ?

I'll try and sort another file when we finally get a bit of decent weather... (I was out working, when I took the one below)

I do have a high res pano (~750MB), from 10 hand held shots taken with the 10-18. Perfectly sharp enough for a 2 metre wide print  Stitched with Autopano Giga, which had no problems with the vignetting or distortion

This is a somewhat reduced version.

Viaduct at John O'Gaunt, Leicestershire

... made me buy one.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the IQ.

At 10mm beter than I've seen from the 10-22. Wide open already sharp up to the edges. Stopping down reduces vignetting considerably and helps to sharpen the extreme corners. The corners never become perfect, but at least very acceptabel.

Slightly less good at 18mm. Less vignetting, but also less sharp at the edges. It seems that there is some field curvature at that FL. But who buy's a 10-18mm for the long end .... Center sharpness btw is good straight from wide open.

The 10-18 is small and weights almost nothing. Perfect for backpacking.

Regards, Sandor.

rrccad wrote:

technic wrote:

maarensv wrote:

Slightly less good at 18mm. Less vignetting, but also less sharp at the edges. It seems that there is some field curvature at that FL. But who buy's a 10-18mm for the long end .... Center sharpness btw is good straight from wide open.

I guess the people who own the 18-55STM lens are an important group of potential buyers, for them having a good top end of the range is important. After all, 14-18mm is probably used more often than 10-14mm (which requires a lot of experience and is less suitable for many subjects).

I use the 15-85 now and I would like to know if the 10-18 lens has better corner quality around 15mm, because that is far from ideal with my 15-85 and most of my shots are at 15-18mm (nominal). If the 10-18 is at least as good in the overlapping range - which I doubt based on the images I have seen - I am tempted to buy the 10-18 and ditch my 15-85 for the much smaller/lighter 18-55STM

or maybe a little more versatile system with the 18-135mm STM and still lighter than the 15-85mm?

I just picked up my 10-18 today for a match to my 18-135 stm.  So far I like it but it does have a flair problem with the sun just outside the frame.

Dave