Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens £377 @ Amazon
56°Expired

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens £377 @ Amazon

5
Found 21st Sep 2015
Been watching this lens for a while, looks like a good deal

5 Comments

Not so much of a deal, this was £422 then reduced to £377 but most shops so you can pick this up for that price as currys and Jessops right now

But last month (Aug) this was under the cash back deal from canon, therefore £377 less £50 cash back, so can't go wrong for £327

I have this lens, regardless that it's not the best price buts it a cracking lens and amazing for landscape, I'll recommend this to everyone I know after using it

Mastiman

Not so much of a deal, this was £422 then reduced to £377 but most shops s … Not so much of a deal, this was £422 then reduced to £377 but most shops so you can pick this up for that price as currys and Jessops right nowBut last month (Aug) this was under the cash back deal from canon, therefore £377 less £50 cash back, so can't go wrong for £327I have this lens, regardless that it's not the best price buts it a cracking lens and amazing for landscape, I'll recommend this to everyone I know after using it



How does it compare to the 10-18? I'm on a tighter budget on photography so I'm likely to settle at the 10-18.

EpiKz

How does it compare to the 10-18? I'm on a tighter budget on photography … How does it compare to the 10-18? I'm on a tighter budget on photography so I'm likely to settle at the 10-18.


the 10-18 is supposed to be sharper and has IS, this lens has a better aperture so it'd depend on what you need it for. i think most people would be better off with the 10-18 because of the IS and probably wont notice/need the better aperture. and of course its a lot cheaper, got mine for about £160 with the canon cashback.

davedelaney1978

the 10-18 is supposed to be sharper and has IS, this lens has a better … the 10-18 is supposed to be sharper and has IS, this lens has a better aperture so it'd depend on what you need it for. i think most people would be better off with the 10-18 because of the IS and probably wont notice/need the better aperture. and of course its a lot cheaper, got mine for about £160 with the canon cashback.


+1

I have both the 10-22 and 10-18 lenses.The former I bought 4 years ago and it is a fantastic UWA lens. I only bought tbe 10-18 on a whim as I struggled with the 10-22 on my EOS-M body. This lens is built to last, it is heavy with fantastic optics and ; whilst it is an EF-S lens it really is built ads though it was meant to be an EF. I think the nearest EF equivalent would be the EF 16-35mm at getting on for 3x the price.

The 10-18 is a nice lightweight UWA but it feels flimsy in comparison to the 10-22. Makes best use of the entry level EOS xxx range and, with the EF-M using thd mount adaoter it is a fantastic workhorse. Mine spends a lot of time on my partners EOS1200D along with her EF-S 17-85 and 55-250 as a complete 'starter kit.

The real question is this; will you actually us the heavier more expensive 10-22 enough to warrant it's hefty price tag, when the 10-18 is a great little worker and slips in the camera bag without giving the owner the pip, money wise, when it can live in the bag when you are not using what may be the most expensive item in the bag! The lighter and cheaper 10-18 (I got mine new for £138) is a bargain when paired with a 700D and below. It is NOT, IMHO, as good as the 10-22 but it seems to be my first choice UWA lens of the two. As the EOS M is basically a mirrorless EOS 600/650, I have enjoyes some extraordinary shots, printed on top photo papar to A3.

If money is no object and you shoot with a 650D, 60D, 70D or 7D try them both. Staying at entry level or £££ are short then the 10-18 will be a winner as well.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text