View of the Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 10-18mm 1: 4.5-5.6 IS STM lens, examples of photos from it, and the review itself especially for Radozhiva, prepared Oleg Taranenko.
Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 10-18mm 1: 4.5-5.6 IS STM
Canon EF-S 10-18mm f / 4.5-5.6 IS STM - consumer, ultra wide-angle zoom lens for Canon cameras with EF-S mount и APS-C format matricesreleased in may 2014. The lens will not be able to mount on full frame cameras... With the release of this model, the amateur Canon segment has expanded and covers the range of focal lengths: from 10 to 250 mm.
The lens attracts with a wide viewing angle, EGF - will be 16-29 mm on full-frame cameras, and at a relatively small price. His stated the cost is 300 cu, and today, it is one of the most inexpensive ultra-wide-angle lenses. Perhaps it is worth noting its light weight: only 240 grams. Specifications can be viewed here.
Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 10-18mm 1: 4.5-5.6 IS STM, lens shown on camera Canon EOS 1100D
Assembly and appearance
The lens assembly makes a good impression. No backlash or spontaneous extension of the trunk is observed. When zooming in, the front lens moves forward slightly. There are two switches on the lens barrel: switching between manual and automatic focusing, as well as an on / off switch for the stabilizer. The zoom ring is wide and comfortable, but the manual focus ring, on the contrary, is rather narrow and uncomfortable. Among the drawbacks of the assembly is the absence of a metal mount. Here, unfortunately, Canon remains true to itself and does not always install a metal mount on amateur lenses.
Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 10-18mm 1: 4.5-5.6 IS STM
Focusing
The lens has an electronic focusing system. This means that manual focusing is not possible when the camera is off. Focusing is smooth, fast enough and quiet. The lens is so silent that in the first minutes of communication with it, the thought of a breakdown of autofocus crept in. :) For example, my 40 mm pancake makes a lot more noise. This factor may be of interest to videographers. Focusing is internal, the front lens does not rotate, which is convenient when installing filters. The diameter of the filter is 67 mm.
Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6 IS II and Canon Zoom Lens EF-S 10-18mm 1: 4.5-5.6 IS STM
Sharpness and distortion
In the center of the frame, sharpness is good already at full aperture. Covering the aperture to the value of F / 5.6, the edges begin to pull up. Maximum sharpness comes in values from eight to eleven. Here it can be noted that the edges of the frame still sag a little at the widest position.
At the 10mm focal length, the lens has noticeable barrel distortion, which is common to all wide-angle lenses. If you increase the focal length to a value of 14-18 mm, the distortion returns to normal. The focal length of 14mm is well suited for shooting architecture. The rest of the distortion can be corrected in the editor, and the viewing angle remains wide enough, EGF will be 22.4 mm, which is even slightly wider than the classic 24 mm.
Chromatic aberration and vignetting
The lens has chromatic aberrations, and this problem is not cured by aperture. There is only one way out: shooting in RAW and subsequent correction in the editor. It should be noted, however, that the aberrations are not very large. Canon EF-S 10-18mm f / 4.5-5.6 IS STM is not a fast lens, but it has strong vignetting. This is especially pronounced at a focal 10 mm and a fully open aperture. By closing the aperture to f / 5.6, vignetting is reduced, but remains strong enough. And even at f / 8 it does not completely disappear. On the rest of the focal and fully open apertures, vignetting is also present. If in clear weather the vignette does not spoil the picture, then in cloudy weather it makes it gloomy.
Stabilizer operation
The stabilizer pleased with its work. I pretty steadily received clear pictures at a 1/4 second draw. With a certain amount of dexterity, you can shoot on shutter speed 1/2 second. But do not forget that these values are borderline and the stabilizer will not always be a panacea. In the gallery I have a picture taken on shutter speed 1/2 second from the hands.
Side and backlight operation
The lens has a Super Spectra anti-reflective coating to protect it from stray light and unwanted glare. However, when shooting "head-on", a small number of "hares" are present. In general, it is advisable to buy a hood for the lens, since because of the wide viewing angle, the sun constantly strives to get into the frame. All pictures were taken without lens hood.
M.D.F.
The minimum focusing distance is 22 centimeters. There is no need to talk about any macro here, however, this factor can be used as an artistic device. Unfortunately, beautiful flowers, starfish and crabs were not at hand. Therefore, an old camera acted as a model. At the same time, you can see bokeh.
Results
In general, I liked the lens, although not without its drawbacks. This is a good opportunity to try a wide angle for relatively little money and see if you really need it at all.
From the pros, you can distinguish:
- Good value for money
- Light weight
- Good sharpness (not perfect, but good enough for a super wide)
- Well-corrected distortion
- Silent focusing
Of the minuses:
- Chromatic aberrations (not deadly, but they are)
- Vignetting. Both can be corrected in the editor. It is better to shoot in RAW, because because of a wide angle, problems may arise: with a difference in brightness in different parts of the frame, plus the ubiquitous "sun". For example, there are no such pronounced problems at 18mm.
- Lack of metal bayonet mount
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Deadly chromatic aberration.
Are your eyes bleeding?
And I liked the photo. Winter decay. Especially post-Soviet pictures :)
Yes, sharp he is only in the center; but this can be experienced using as a feature, not a bug.
actually this is a quote from the text.
Yes, I understood sarcasm :)
[offtopic]
George (if I'm not mistaken), you seem to be engaged in the manufacture of all kinds of jewelry out of wood / stone; maybe you can review Radozhiva on macro photography of products? such as helpful tips, etc.
I think it would be useful to many (including me).
[/ offtopic]
http://lynxpro.ru/fotografirovanie-yuvelirki/
everything is extremely elementary when it comes to technical photos. Although I usually now use two smaller flashes, the aperture is 8, the ring size is larger, to increase the contrast and saturation in the editor and the norms.
and the decor is already from the taste of the design. I don't have it.
And which lens doesn’t limp on such focal points?
good
Good money needs a lot, 150–200. That's when the aberrations will be less and the sharpness a little better. Do you need it for such a price tag?
Fundamentally? mirror - lens. It would be very interesting to look at the super-wide specular lens =)
Either I'm not looking there, or I didn’t understand the jokes about sharpness. Soap edges, even on covered holes, I had this on Tamron (perhaps a manufacturing defect?). I would remove the passage about sharpness from the merits.
I indicated this in the review. The edges of the frame drop out. All the same, this is a budget over-wide, achieving sharpness around the edges has always been a difficult task at a wide angle. Yes, and if it were ideal there was no need for more expensive 16-35 / f2.8 and 16-35 / f4
forest shot in wide causes panic :)
in general, I read reviews on it on the Yandex market, they are very good, the lens is a miracle
but it turns out everything is so rosy
Confused with equivalent focal lengths. In terms of a full frame, EGFs will be 6-11 mm. And why indicate the EGF for 35 mm EF-S lenses if they still do not sculpt on a full frame?
you are mistaken, it is correct for the author with EGF
The focal length does not depend on the size of the matrix, this is a property of the lens.
If you screw this instance onto a full-frame Boot (which is impossible due to the design features of the bayonet mount), then it will be exactly 10-18 mm. But on the crop EFR will be SAME AS 16-29 mm in full frame.
The range from 10 to 250 was on the canon and before this lens. Than 10-22 is not an amateur lens?
Yes, 10-22 is definitely an amateur lens, only its price knows nothing about it. In terms of optical properties, he has probably gone far. I meant the series more: kenon 10-18, kenon 18-55, kenon 55-250. Not fully revealed the thought
Lenses 10-22 and say 18-135stm, 17-50 2.8 would be attributed to advanced amateur
Not one of them is not advanced. I have 10-22 and 17-50. Just amateur. But the old moons can already be considered as such. For example 24-105, 17-40 / 4.
Well, there is an opinion that it is similar to kenon 17-40 in optical properties. Same issues with vignetting and frame edges
This applies to the full frame. On crop he is good.
so all kosyachki are cut off
17-40 on crop 1.6 can be a solid staffer, but nifiga not wide
What is a staffer? For one staffer it will be 50 mm, for another 200 mm. It all depends on the tasks.
17mm is a wide angle even on a crop.
I will not reveal a terrible secret if I say that the overwhelming majority of mere mortals (90-95%) will not notice any loss of sharpness at the edges, or chromaticism, if they are shown a correctly composed frame. Because some people look at the picture as a whole, while others ("photo-cutters") look for flaws in the form of chromatism, vignettes, blurred edges (wide !!!) and "wrong skin tone" ...
Something like that is.
What can be considered as an alternative to this lens?
Tokin. 124 or 128
Tokina is better, but the price is twice as much
This is if you count 128. If you take the old 12-24 on the secondary, then it will work approximately the same.
you have to pay for quality, yes.
And widths are more often more interesting than fixes.
quite right
Thanks, but if so, Sigmu is better.
I absolutely support. He became the owner of the first version 12-24, on the secondary, somewhere around $ 200- $ 250, the quality of the photos is at a very high level.
As usual, the holy trinity of tamron-sigma-tokina. Set of focal matching
no alternative
this is stabilized glass, which makes it different from analogs
+1
Hmmm, the lens is weak for a landscape ... Blood relatives of the whale in the photo. Thanks to the author for the review! It's always nice to read something new, which I haven't tried)))
And call it not weak for the landscape? Yes, so that it costs no more than 5 times more than this!
You also ask to name the lens, so as not to be more expensive than a whale, but take it off like L)) It is clear that it will be more expensive. The same Tokina 11-16 is much preferable.
But she does not have 10 mm, and the hero of the review of the edge will tighten by 11 and. Plus, the tokens do not have a stub, there is no quiet motor. Although the case, it is definitely better. And where did I say no more? Read carefully.
I read carefully. The quiet motor in the photo is not needed, the stub is wide, like a cow's saddle. 11 mm, but not 10. But the edges of the subject are neither 11 mm nor 14 to Tokina. Optically Tokina is very good.
Quiet and fast. Situations when you do not need to buzz with a lot of autofocus when photographing. In tokens, too, the edge is soaping. 2,8 good, but a stub of 3 feet holds.
For understanding. I do not own this lens. Those. Do not defend your choice. I at one time preferred all of this 10-22. He is not without sin, but he copes with the tasks set by 80%. And no one else has. More precisely, there are, but these are not comparable prices.
Well, I don’t know, it seems to me Tokina sharper and more uniform. I also do not defend the choice because I sold Tokin)
with a crop of 1.6 11mm is the same as 12 mm for tokens on a crop of 1.5.
“Could you name it not weak for a landscape? Yes, so that it costs no more than 5 times more expensive than this! " Artem, but unfortunately not Canon. Believe it or not, it costs three times cheaper. Oddly enough, this is a plastic cap, popularly referred to as Nikon AF-S 18-55mm f / 3.5-5.6G VR II DX. Of course, this is not 10mm, but 18 and yet ... Once, I myself did not believe it, and due to its meager cost, after reading reviews and reviews, I went and specially bought it to use it, check it out and know. And he received his sight. I am still surprised: how can this plastic product give such a high-quality picture. Yes, you will not see on it “highly artistic” and highly spiritual))) show-offs and braces, supposedly characteristic of lenses with an inexplicable price tag of many zeros. And even more so, considering the cost - $ 80, it is simply gorgeous. Neither "barrels" nor "vignettes" are for you, everything rings, nothing chromatises. On a 16-megapixel sensor with a crop of 1,5, excellent sharpness across the entire field of the frame, even open ones. The work of the stabilizer makes it quite comfortable to shoot handheld in low light conditions at shutter speeds of 1 / 8-1 / 10. You are welcome.
... see examples of handheld evening photos here:https://radojuva.com/2013/03/obzor-nikon-18-70mm-af-s-ed-dx/comment-page-1/#comment-146022
You wrote correctly “Of course, it's not 10mm, but 18”. And this is a completely different calico. Among this class there are a lot of good inexpensive zooms from different manufacturers. But making 10mm without flaws is really difficult.
...
Thanks for the kind tale. I almost shed a tear from emotion some de Nikan 18-55 smart and handsome. I saw a photo from this (Nikon 18-55 BP 2) hmm ... it's hard to call a lens, glasses, soap in the corners, a vignette, etc. An ordinary plastic gag whale is neither better nor worse than others. Maybe you watched the zhipegi, there the camera rules everything.
Once again I looked at the photo, once again checked with MTF. I don’t understand, where is such a mess in the corners? Is it because of asigmatism?
Perhaps because of the large number of photographs with side and backlight, chromatics creep harder. Plus, the original jeeps are still better. But edges and corners still lag
I look at it, while the price scares
thanks for the review.
The lens went for the price of $ 280, there’s simply no cheaper. Himself will soon be kicked out of the house with such a hobby
Tamron took 10-24 in 2014 for $ 200 at the store. I do not think that it is worse.
On ebay some German sells supposedly new 12-28 to Tokin for $ 330, but I have to pay for the delivery and I do not trust the mail of Russia
I have it a little over two years. For a travel photo, it’s just excellent due to the weight, dimensions and a good picture. The vignette on the snowy plots is visible, on the others it is not so noticeable.
And yes, the stub is very useful there, who wouldn’t say anything about the width. From hands on excursions (in temples, for example) it allows you to reduce iso, which in RAW will give some kind of flexibility in processing.
HA are not complicated, they can be cleaned normally in editors. For your money, a crop is just a godsend.
In general, in general, I agree with the recall on most points. But conclusions about chromaticity and low sharpness look somewhat unusual. Perhaps the case in the instance? I just at one time had two sigma 10-20 for canon and nikon, canon 10-22, 17-40 4l for ff and this 10-18, as well as token 11-16 2.8. So, in terms of chromaticity, 10-18is was at least no worse, especially in comparison with a token on an open one (though with a cover they leave there). In terms of sharpness in the corners on one f, 10-18is, when I compared it, turned out to be practically better than all of the above, given that they had f 4,5 already covered. I generally agree about the vignette, but without any problems I correct it even in a jeep. By the way, HA, geometric distortion and vignette is also characteristic of elecs. The same 16-35 2.8l of the second version chromatites noticeably and soap on ff more than 10-18is on crop (especially in the corners noticeably), and also gives significantly more distortions. Unless the new 16-35 4lis on ff turned out to be better (at least tried by me) in comparison with 10-18is. There, the sharpness is still a bit higher at the edges. But slight distortions of the geometry also remained, albeit less than the 16-35 2.8l.
So my acquaintance with 10-18 is delayed, I sincerely consider it the best width for crop canon. One way or another, they lose to him 10-22 (the old, soapy, limping and expensive it is not clear why), and my favorite sigma 10-20 4-5.6 (while she lives on Nikon, but sold the Canon one), and in general, an excellent Tokina 11-16 2.8 (but if you need aperture ratio, 10-18 will not work and the token will be more useful), and Tamron 10-24 (too soapy and hare), and even Elka 17-40 4l per ff (there the corners sag more noticeably , although not critical).
But in general, thanks for the review, I'm glad that finally there was a review of this wonderful lens on Radozhiv!
after the words "Its declared value is 300 USD" there is no point in reading further
Overview of this lens from Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/10-18mm.htm
Claims to the lens from couch analysts and photographers are ridiculous.
This lens is a rare auction of unprecedented generosity from Canon. An excellent lens for ridiculous money.
I prefer to believe my eyes
Denis
26.01.2017/11/47 at XNUMX:XNUMX Reply
in general, I read reviews on it on the Yandex market, they are very good, the lens is a miracle
but it turns out everything is so rosy
It is seen.
Or is an amateur photo more objective for you than a pro?
Haha. They also found “Ikspert” for me - Ken (Help mi help y) Rockwell. Attraction from canon! I haven't laughed like that for a long time!
Where did he write to him on the Internet before “one grasphograph”!
How exactly did you describe yourself! Hvachtograph is a great name. The main thing is rare!
… Well, where have you seen a famous brand that you can use for free? All big names are instantly bought for advertising. Moreover, the lion's share of the income from the sale of one's name is spent on its further promotion, in order to increase the rating and, accordingly, the income from its sale. Ken Rockwell has long been more than just a photographer. His name is, first of all, a well-promoted brand that sells well, whose sales revenues are always higher than from the main activity on which this brand was made. Often there is even a complete cessation of the main activity, and the receipt of income only from the use of its own name by other companies. It's not just Can Rockwell's. No one doubts that he is a great photographer. However, I do not advise you to take “reviews” written on this behalf seriously. Gentlemen, this is an advertisement for Canon products, in which Ken Rockwell "starred", nothing more. Want to know his opinion: ask him personally! If you do not have such an opportunity, then trust only your eyes, not advertising. We are so naive in the Soviet way))).
Kenny has no comments on the site, not even an e-mail, he can only write letters to his Ranch in person. I wanted to somehow invite him to write about our Gelik-81N, I encountered such a problem. Peace, labor, palm trees.
Arkady, you surprise me. There are very few sites like yours, with real reviews, real comments and responses from "live" people. Take care of it and increase it))), and one day you will become like Ken))))
Do you think he does not know how to use electric mail? :)
Rogue Ken Rockwell's website has no comments or e-mail only, it also lacks photos, but there are a lot of false paid recommendations. He is always ready to talk about “auctions of unprecedented generosity from canon” and embroider photo reviews without photos. His site contains a lot of maxims like “buy this lens if you haven't bought it yet, I bought mine for a long time in Adoram at a price three times higher than the market price” or “make donations” or “help mi help yu” or “Help my fast growing family live well in the most expensive area of Posadena ”. It's time to reveal a terrible secret: "Ken Rockwell is an ordinary schmuck" and let's not quote this shame on this wonderful resource.
I think you quoted him
How to get permission from Ken to reprint texts if it is impossible to contact him?
What aggression
And I liked the phrase "- it is not fast, but it has strong vignetting."
What is it like? Is it like "he's not good, but he's very bad"?
Probably it would be easier to write “dark and with a strong vignette”.
In general, in 2014, it would be possible to construct lenses more successfully, especially on Kenon. Good to all!
Fast apertures often suffer from strong vignetting.
The dark ones usually do not have this problem
Vignetting is, as it were, inherent in open diaphragms; here it is strongly on the covered
I noticed this feature ... in conjunction with a 40d (10mpx) camera, the sharpness of this glass is very good. Anything above 10mpx starts to soft. Obik with low resolution. Or it's a matter of adjusting for a specific camera.
Here, this is exactly what I write everywhere, but the crop-complacent ones laugh, but I’m not laughing, the crop over 10 megapixels has become a dreary soap shit, which turns out to be necessary to adjust, but heaps of photos on Foto.ru from 60d, 70d, 80d are soap and digital-digital, as if I’m looking at examples from the ultrasound. A good crop was up to 10 megapixels, then only huge soapy pictures of 5000x3000 and above, a lot of parrots, but it looks like a soap box. And given that these pictures are mostly viewed on social networks ... Well, everyone really needs 18-28 megapixels, well, you’ll just be a masterpiece if there is a crop with such a resolution, “well, he’s not inferior to FF in anything!” Yep, I believe you...
And this lens can be screwed onto the attachment for rectangular ND and gradient filters. It's wider - won't the vignetting appear even more? Has anyone tried it?
I can’t say that vignetting is strongly manifested on aperture 5,6, it is mainly noticeable in cloudy weather or in winter against a background of white snow. Here are some examples of f5.6, contrast ratio 1 or 0 in DPP.
well and here
...
“” ””
I think here everything will depend more on the quality of the filter itself, as they themselves often give strong vignetting. But I can’t tell you about the mechanical installation of the nozzle: if you remove the hood, then the distance to the focus ring is literally 7-8 millimeters. What kind of nozzle design is there, I haven’t used it, I can’t tell you unfortunately
For a long time I want to buy something wide-angle on my 650D and just the day before yesterday I found out about this lens. Judging by the rather impressive results on the heap of photos viewed, for that kind of money it's just a gift!
I can give some tips on communicating with him. It is better to focus on the center point or choose the desired point yourself. When focusing on all nine points, the camera often does not understand what they want from it, it clings to the nearest objects by the side or bottom points and an abra cadabra is obtained. When shooting at short shutter speeds, turn off the stub, it also often affects focus, but in low light conditions you can, in principle, shoot stably at a shutter speed of half a second. Finally, the weakest side is chromatic aberration, they always exist in any weather and affect image quality including sharpness, especially at the edges of the frame. But they are easily cleaned in the editor, my camera cannot automatically remove them in jpeg, so I shoot in raw and remove in DPP, the picture immediately transforms and becomes sharper. In general, it is better to shoot in super-wide in raw, the brightness differences in the frame are large, exposure adjustment may be necessary, the camera is often mistaken. And finally, the maximum sharpness at the edges comes at apertures: 6.3-8. more, in principle, it makes no sense to close
Yes, this is how I shoot landscapes: always in Rava, the hole is 8, and what is the point of focusing on 9 points at all I can't imagine. I have had a central point for many years. And thanks for the clarification. I think I'll make myself a present for the new year.
I think you will not be disappointed
I am urgently looking for a used shirik - samyang 10mm, for an adequate price!
8(918)66-44-348
similarly, buy used Samyang 10mm f / 2.8 or Samyang 8mm f / 3.5
095 705 22 84
And the owners of this lens will not tell you exactly what you need to pay attention to in the store when buying this glass. How to choose?
Tell me on what aperture is the maximum sharpness?
Very good review, thanks, you can get a clear idea about this lens.
It seems like most of the comments boil down to “what for, if you have [xxxxxx]”. Isn't it obvious? Stab, STM .. for apartment video filming is glass. There would be a constant aperture - in general one could say - an advanced option for the videographer.
Normal glass. On operational properties better than 10-22 leaves.
This is a very nice compact and cheap croaker for the crop, perfect for shooting landscapes and tourist attractions during the day.
a gorgeous lens, regretted it when I switched to full frame. Worthy in every way! Silent in video, instant focus, excellent sharpness, etc.
Vadim, if you please, enlighten, how does he feel at sea sunsets and sunrise? And then I looked after myself used But I am jittery. Thank you!
If Vadim is a priest, then he can also enlighten.
It behaves very decently with a normal tripod. It's very small and light and in the wind with a flimsy tripod and light camera your whole structure can shake, blurring the frame, so dignity can turn into a disadvantage. But for that kind of money, the quality is beyond praise, especially on the crop.
“The lens has an electronic focusing system. This means that manual focusing is not possible when the camera is off. ”
Why do this?
simplification / reduction in the cost of construction.
In this case, the focusing ring travel does not depend on the helicoid travel. Fast autofocus and long travel of the focusing ring can be done
I had a sigma 10-20 on Nikon. Generally good. Now there is a question of analog on Canon. Shooting from a tripod, architecture, interiors. (Accordingly, the stub and noiselessness of the motor is insignificant). Won't this lens be a disappointment compared to the Sigma?