Which Lens?

[UmmZakariyya]

Hello,

I am going to make a purchase of my second lens, ever. I wanted to ask everyone which one should I get, 18-200mm normal telephoto lens or the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM?

I Think I take more landscapes and closeups but I also would need the telephoto lens, a lot. I heard that the 10-22 Zoom lens is fuzzy at the corners, is that true? Has anyone got it?

Please Advice,
Thankyou..

[OsmosisStudios]

Those lenses serve very different purposes.

[arsifferlen]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Those lenses serve very different purposes.

elaboration, please?

[RichardTaylor]

What lens do you have now?

What is your priority, very wide angle or telephoto or what do you want ti shoot with your new lens?

Canon Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM review
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens Review

Review.
Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens Review

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by arsifferlen

elaboration, please?

What is there to elaborate? One is an ultra-wide zoom and the other is a wide-to-telephoto superzoom. The fulfill VERY different roles. The choice the OP makes depends greatly on what he/she wants the lens to do for them.

[RichardTaylor]

The OP needs to prioritise.

[BCampbell]

As Osmosis said, these are two very different lenses and serve different functions. You should narrow down what you want to be doing with your camera before you decide.

The 10-22 is a great wide angle solution for cropped sensor cameras. It has high optical quality and fills in a hard to reach focal length range. You'll want this if you're shooting indoors a lot, and possibly for landscapes.

The 18-200 is going to replace your kit lens and is designed to be an "all purpose" lens. Optical quality is good, but not great. It does what it claims to do -- fills in a huge variety of focal ranges -- but no more than that.

What are you planning on doing with your camera? The 10-22 will open up options for you at the wide end, and the 18-200 will open up options at the long end.

If you're looking at the 18-200, I would suggest also considering the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS). It's not much more, and is a really, really nice lens. With a kit lens and the 70-200 you're covering almost all of the ranges the 18-200 would, and you're getting much better image quality on the long end.

[JeffSmith]

I once owned the 10-22mm. It's super wide angle, you can capture the whole of an iside of a room (and your feet if you're not careful). However, whilst I was pleased with the focal length, I was disappointed with the image quality, it just wasn't sharp enough for me. Hence I sold it in late 2009. Now I've learned my lesson, I only buy L glass.

IMHO, the 18-200 lens is too big a zoom tolerance and the sweet spot will be quite narrow. My advice it to buy a used L series lens; it will last you forever. 24-105 is a good all-rounder and there are quite a few around.

[Vivax]

I have a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM, its a lovely lens but as per the comments above a different ball game to a 'normal' focal range. I use it a lot but wow its very very wide! As Jeff and BCampbell mention If you are after a new lens for a variety of uses get the L series zoom with a wide range.

[UmmZakariyya]

Ohh.. right,

Thank you everyone for your advice...

well I would be shooting a lot of landscapes, and macro as well.

Can someone recomend a lens that's good for possibly both or landscapes? Can I capture good landscapes with a macro lens?
I have a 500D Canon..