QUICK! $599 for Canon 10-22 USM, shipped! Is it worth it?!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by seenew, Aug 23, 2006.

  1. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #1
    I hear this is the best wide lens around, especially for Canon EOS cameras, and I have a Rebel XT, which I've heard is perfect for this lens. I just came into $1000, and I've been needing a wide lens, I was considering the Sigma 10-20 since it was cheaper, but everyone says if you can afford it, the Canon is best. Since this price I found is not too much more than the Sigma would be shipped, do you think I should go for it?

    I just want a little support, I'll probably buy it anyway!
    Please reply!
     
  2. amin macrumors 6502a

    amin

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #2
    Yes, if that price is from a reputable dealer, you need a super-wide zoom, and you don't plan on going to a full frame camera in the near future, you should buy! Great price on the best lens in its class.
     
  3. jova007 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #3
    I dont like that lens. Its way too distorted.

    Go for the 17-40L.
     
  4. seenew thread starter macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #4
    With a RebelXT, I'll need something wider than that. That's barely wide at all. I've already got the kit 18-55, albeit cheap, it's still 18mm.
     
  5. jova007 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Location:
    Minneapolis
    #5
    I see.. then the only zoom lens wider than that is the 10-22.
     
  6. cgratti macrumors 6502a

    cgratti

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    #6
    what store are you ordering it from? It could be a scam or gray market lens.
     
  7. amin macrumors 6502a

    amin

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #7
    That is a good price even for gray market. I bought the same lens from Dell for $589 when it first came out - they had a killer deal. I didn't find the barrel distortion excessive. The tangential distortion is a creative plus! Here's a quick snap in the park I took with this lens (sky has been hastily replaced):

    [​IMG]
     
  8. seenew thread starter macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #8
    Haha! Man I wish that sky wasn't replaced, I was gonna say that was a killer shot!
    Still really cool, though.


    Well, I bought it. Cross your fingers. We'll know if it's too good to be true in 3-5 business days!
     
  9. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #9
    Sounds like a good deal on the Canon lens. I know the Nikon 12-24 f4.0 is nearly $1000, although highly rated, and the Canon 10-22 is probably in the $700 range normally. I'm considering the same class of lens, to replace my old Canon 20-35 f3.5/5.6 (from the film days with my old EOS A2 and trusty EOS 630.) But, I got a great deal on a Nikon D50 kit ($489) so I'm giving the Nikon side a tryout.

    I've read some interesting reviews on available lenses from several different sites (here's one link,) and the Tokina 12-24 looks like a possible standout (pro build quality) both optically, and at $499 it's half the price of the Nikon. On the Canon mount it has built-in focus motor like the Canon AF lenses, but the Nikon version still uses the older Nikon autofocus system using a cam-type focus connection to the camera body. Most of the newer Nikon lenses are like the Canons with ultrasonic type.

    Still sorting out the Nikon ergonomics after so many years shooting EOS. If I get comfortable with the system, I might start adding some lenses, otherwise I'll eventually spring for my dream camera, the EOS 30D.

    I'll keep you posted on how this Nikon experiment works out. Some quirks already turning up...
     
  10. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #10
    I don't like the sky in that pic. :eek: It looks too fake.
     
  11. thebiggoose macrumors 6502

    thebiggoose

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2006
    #11

    that picture is BAD ASS
     

Share This Page