Hello All, My wife has a 7D Mk II and loves it... we're both (and I with a Pentax and Leica background) very impressed with its capabilities especially in the autofocus realm. So far, there are 2 lenses, the EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the 70-300mm EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS II USM. We do a lot of National/State/Regional Park travelling with landscapes/nature being the primary photo goals. We're planning a Zion NP trip in the spring (to possibly include a Narrows hike). She feels the next need is a super/ultra wide-angle zoom option, the choices being narrowed down to the EF-S 10-18/4.5-5.6 IS USM and the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 USM. Used prices seems to be decreasing between the two, so that's not a deciding factor for us. I've done a fair amount of perusing to ascertain the differences, i.e., IS vs. non-IS vs. speed, size and weight differences, etc. But there seems to be little info from users who have in practice used both, it's usually just one or the other making it difficult to get a true comparison between the two. Can anyone offer insights into the overall image-quality results and/or sharpness differences, distortion, etc. and overall practical use? Thanks to everyone in advance! Cheers, Allan
I bought the package deal on Amazon where the 10-18mm and the 50mm f/1.8 (the nifty fifty) as the 'Canon Portrait and Travel Two Lens Kit'. I have been pretty happy with the 10-18mm lens.
one of my goto lens reviewers is Christopher Frost on youtube https://www.youtube.com/user/christopherfrost/videos there is a good chance he has reviewed these
The 10-18 is a pretty solid lens but keep in mind it is inexpensive and plastic and only made for crop bodies.
Thanks Johnsey! Have you tried the 10-22mm? I must admit right now I’m leaning a little toward that one, one reason being since it goes out to 22mm, it overlaps somewhat with the 18-135; it may require fewer lens swaps (being slightly more versatile) in situations where a wide angle will be used more often. And I feel the lack of image stabilization is less of a factor at those focal lengths. Are there any sharpness differences? Thanks again, Allan
Honestly I have not tried the 10-22 or any of the -S lenses. It was brand new when I got my 20d back in 2004 but I opted for the 17-40 L instead as my first lens purchase (that and a nifty 50) . I ended up getting a full frame before adding a 14mm lens to pair with my 17-40. What I have read is good things about it so I think for the price it is a good grab if you like wide angle, so I think you will be pretty happy with it. As you are invested in crop lenses already it is a natural choice with your kit. What do you plan to shoot so wide? I wanted to be able to shoot some astro shots so I decided to get something faster and got a 14mm 2.8. I do agree at that end of the spectrum IS is less important when shooting that wide as I usually find if I am shooting slow shutter speeds I am using a tripod anyway. I must say that the 17-40 has been my favorite and most used lens over the years regardless of body, I only urge people to consider longevity choices if you decide to upgrade the body later. As you can see my lenses are now on their 3rd body in 16 years.
Thanks for the info! We like to do landscapes, some of them in places that getting the entire perspective is difficult. We're planning a Death Vally NP trip in December and a Zion NP trip next spring that will probably involve a hike on "The Narrows" trail, and visit the slot canyons near Page AZ. Getting down to 10mm with the crop sensor would be great! Cheers, Allan
Sure enough, he has detailed reviews for both lenses and also another with a comparison of 8 ultra-wide zooms that include the two Canons, plus lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, just perfect, thanks! Decisions, decisions...
yes, i actually re-watched the wide shoot out again while researching, my two widest lenses are the 7.5mm 7artisans and the loawa 9mm. aside from the 15-45 kit i also have the 18-35 sig art, i've just started getting into adapting m42 vintage lenses, have a Vintage Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35mm F2.8 on the way i found on ebay for £50, at those prices a pocket of vintage primes might be a fun thing to have, i doubt they are as clinical as the modern lenses but i like the vintage stuff for the vintage look, and yeah i know alot of the vintage look comes from the camera as well as the lens. on that review the 10-18 is the one i would go for but it might be worth seeing if there is a faster lens, some of those forest canopies can loose you alot of light. if you are going to use a tripod then you can gain all that lost light back
Well, after careful consideration, I did indeed decide on the 10-18mm STM. The other main contender at first was the 10-22mm, but pretty much every review pointed to better optics with the 10-18mm and the addition of image stabilization that more than made up for the wider 10-22mm aperture. The plastic mount of the 10-18mm was mentioned but in every single case dismissed as a disadvantage (yes, it's plastic, but it's never a problem). In the process, I also learned of the existence of the Sigma 8-16mm and seriously considered it, due to it's lower focal length at the bottom of the zoom range and its superior sharpness throughout. But some drawbacks brought me back to the equally-sharp 10-18mm, those being the inability to use filters, erratic autofocus, and significantly higher cost, not worth it for the extra 2mm at the bottom end of the zoom range. In the end, the 10-18mm won out in almost every respect; its next target will be Death Valley National Park in December. Thanks to everyone who responded, much appreciated!
as an additional lens, if you want a cheap fun and very sharp fisheye lens take a look at the 7artisans 7.5mm fisheye , its a fully manual ƒ2.8, i have the crop mount version for canon. small lens that has a stupid wide angle but not circular, great fun and you can stand within touching distance of a great oak and still get the whole thing in view. good thing with the 10-18 zoom, you can see after a while if you want to pick up a prime of your fav mm
