Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Canon 10-22mm and 15-85mm

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    capto
    capto e2 Member 21153 forum postscapto vcard United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
    9 Mar 2013 - 7:09 PM

    I would like to know if it would be worth buying the 10-22mm when I already have the 15-85mm. Is that 10-15mm worth paying for. Has anyone got both and can give a first hand opinion. It's that Canon cash back that has whetted my appetite again.

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    9 Mar 2013 - 7:09 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    rambler
    rambler e2 Member 6474 forum postsrambler vcard England14 Constructive Critique Points
    9 Mar 2013 - 7:23 PM

    I have the 15 - 85 Canon lens and a 10 - 20 Sigma and I have to say I have not used the Sigma for quite a while. There could be occasions when I might use it but I have not found any of late. If you plan to do lots of landscapes of sandy beaches then it might be worth it.

    Ken

    WhiteRose1
    WhiteRose1 e2 Member 41054 forum postsWhiteRose1 vcard England136 Constructive Critique Points
    9 Mar 2013 - 8:06 PM

    Ditto, got the 15-85 and 10-20 sigma and the latter does not get much use.

    capto
    capto e2 Member 21153 forum postscapto vcard United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
    10 Mar 2013 - 8:57 AM

    I guess the comments above are what I was expecting. It's the old Want v Need battle, I must remain strong and fight the temptations.
    Thanks for the input.

    SteveHunter
    10 Mar 2013 - 9:10 AM

    I agree with the above comments.

    I think if I had opted for the 15 - 85 when I replaced my walkabout lens I would not need my Siggy 10 - 20, but I didn't go down the 15-85 approach for a walkabout lens, I opted for the 24 - 105, so in my case the 10 - 20 is useful for the few occasions I want to get a bit wider than 24mm. I very rarely use the 10 - 20 at 10mm, it's just a bit too wide for normal use. Unless you want that really wide ability for a specific purpose I wouldn't bother.

    Dave_Canon
    10 Mar 2013 - 12:28 PM

    I do have the Canon 10-22mm and it used to be well used on my EOS 20D but I then bought a full frame 5D2 for which you cannot use the 10-22mm. I have since converted my 20D to Infra Red and so the lens is still regularly used and has a good IR performance. For the 5D2, I already had the 24-105mm f4 and 70-200mm f2.8 so was still looking some something wider. I would have accepted the Canon 16-35mm but instead bought the Sigma 12-24mm and used the money saved to pay for the IR conversion. The Sigma lens is fine for visible light but of no use for IR (Flare and hot spots) so I am glad I kept the 10-22mm.

    So while I do recommend the Canon 10-22mm as excellent quality, do remember that you can only use it on half frame cameras so, if you plan to move to FF, you may need to replace it.

    Dave

    steve_p
    steve_p  91098 forum posts England
    10 Mar 2013 - 2:28 PM

    I've got a 15-85, and have recently acquired a Sigma 10-20. Although I agree the the extra 5 mm is not a great deal, I like to do architectural photos, both interiors and exterior. It's invaluable for that.

    MalcolmS
    MalcolmS e2 Member 91072 forum postsMalcolmS vcard England13 Constructive Critique Points
    10 Mar 2013 - 4:58 PM

    I had a 15-85mm as a walkabout and the Sigma 10-20mm for landscape both on a 40D. I got plenty of use out of both, it was handy having that bit of extra width and the 10mm is equivalent to 16mm on a crop sensor so compliments the 15-85mm.

    capto
    capto e2 Member 21153 forum postscapto vcard United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
    10 Mar 2013 - 6:37 PM


    Quote: I had a 15-85mm as a walkabout and the Sigma 10-20mm for landscape both on a 40D. I got plenty of use out of both, it was handy having that bit of extra width and the 10mm is equivalent to 16mm on a crop sensor so compliments the 15-85mm.

    Oh dear I feel a wobble coming on!

    I'm very grateful for all the advice.

    mikehit
    mikehit  56475 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
    10 Mar 2013 - 7:58 PM


    Quote: and the 10mm is equivalent to 16mm on a crop sensor so compliments the 15-85mm.

    Say what....? Tongue


    I think you meant that it is equivalent to 16mm on full frame, but as the OP has not indicated they have FF, the reference is meaningless. All that is important is that the 10-20 overlaps the 15-85.

    bainsybike
    11 Mar 2013 - 10:34 AM

    I have both the Canon 10-22 and 15-85. The 10-22 is a very nice handling lens (at least without the hood) - it's small and light and doesn't extend when zoomed. With a Rebel body, it makes a very good lightweight kit to go hiking with, perhaps supplemented by the 40mm pancake. I tend to use this combo more than the 15-85, although I have to admit that this has been rather forced upon me since my daughter "borrowed" that one.

    MalcolmS
    MalcolmS e2 Member 91072 forum postsMalcolmS vcard England13 Constructive Critique Points
    11 Mar 2013 - 12:27 PM


    Quote: Say what....?

    I presume you mean so what ? So before you start sticking your tongue out check your spelling and yes you are quite correct in your statement, the magnification does not change (a common misconception), the subject just takes up more of the frame and therefore seems bigger in the shot when viewed. Wink

    mikehit
    mikehit  56475 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
    11 Mar 2013 - 3:04 PM

    No, I meant 'Say what' as in 'can you explain what you mean' because what you wrote made no sense


    Quote: and the 10mm is equivalent to 16mm on a crop sensor so compliments the 15-85mm

    The 10mm on an APS-C camera is equivalent to 10mm on crop sensor. So if you did make a basic error surely you cannot object to a jokey tounge-stick.

    So the only conclusion I could draw was that you were bringing up the good old 'crop factor' comparison again. And if you read what I said more carefully rather than being quick to take offence, you would have realised that I was wondering why you made reference to the crop factor. Crop factor has relevance only when you are comparing lens performance on APS-C vs 35mm, and if the OP has never used 35mm it means nothing to them (that is like saying 'it is the colour of an armadillo if you have never seen an armadillo').

    MalcolmS
    MalcolmS e2 Member 91072 forum postsMalcolmS vcard England13 Constructive Critique Points
    11 Mar 2013 - 6:45 PM


    Quote: No, I meant 'Say what' as in 'can you explain what you mean'

    I would never have gleaned that was what you meant.


    Quote: jokey tounge-stick

    Is this a spelling mistake or do you mean something different to 'jokey tongue-stick'.

    If you had not been so quick to take offense (after all I did wink) and read my follow up, I did concede that you were correct in what you were saying which in my mind also conceded that I had expressed myself badly. But hey, life's too short, the OP seemed to know what I meant as he 'liked' my comment, so he must have got what he wanted out of it.

    Last Modified By MalcolmS at 11 Mar 2013 - 6:47 PM
    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.