dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I got the 10-18 a little while ago and love it. If you are just now starting to experiment with wide angle, this is the lens to get. If you get more demanding later and need more low light for events or real estate interiors you might want to upgrade at that point.

Mr. B Loc: eastern Connecticut

I have been using the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens on my 7D for several years and am extremely pleased with it. I consider it essential to travel and landscape photography.
In my opinion it's well worth the cost.

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

The Sigma 8-16 is an excellent lens.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

On a crop sensor camera like the 7D, 16mm is not terribly wide. If fast is more important than wide for you, you might want to consider the Sigma 18 - 35mm f/1.8. It's built like a tank, sharp from edge to edge even wide open, and has a silky smooth focus ring and zoom ring, The Sigma is a crop sensor only lens but is sharper than the Canon 16-35 when that lens is mounted on a crop body like yours. It's also a stop and a third faster, comes with a 4 year warranty and is less than half the price of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8. Unless you're planning on going full frame in the near future, it's a better option for a crop body like yours.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I have and love the Sigma 18-35 1.8. It is an awesome lens and at $799 a much better deal than the Canon. But neither lens is very wide on an ASP-C sensor, which is why I picked up the Canon 10-18.

IShootEverything Loc: TN

Thank you everyone for for thoughts. I will be going with the Canon EF 16-35 1:2.8L USM. And here is why. I an upgradeing to the 16-35 from my EF-S 17-85 whitch is in my opinion an awful lens. it has very bad glass quality and is very slow. I am a professional photographer so i need a high quality lens like an L lens and I have a 1:2.8 and I love it so i know I will love the lens i will be getting.
Thank you all
Me

studavis

You are using a 7D which will make a 10 MM be a 16 MM lens. Just so you know that you don't have the lens as marked unless you use a full frame camera. You might want to note the a lens wider then 17 MM tends to be distorted.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

As you may have guessed from my earlier post I too have, and love the Sigma 18-35 which I use on my 60D. Like you I also just got the Canon 10-18 for wide angle landscapes and cityscapes. I'm not a telephoto kind of guy, so my general walk around lens is the Canon 15-85mm which gives me wide angles and a little reach in one lens.

Preachdude Loc: Geneva, OH

First, decide if you want a zoom or a prime lens. B&H customers rate the Canon 10-22mm highest, with the Sigma 10-20mm following close behind at lower cost. Among primes, many photographers appreciate those coming from Korea under the brand names Samyang/Bower/Rokinon. Among those are also some fisheye lenses. Finally, Tokina makes a truly amazing 11-16mm zoom that provides excellent results. Have fun!

Bob Boner

According to some reviews I have seen, the Canon 16-35 f/4 lens is Canon's sharpest. It also has IS vibration reduction.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

The only bad thing I've heard about the 10-18 is the plastic build construction...otherwise IQ is great.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

True it plastic and very light, only around nine ounces, and has a plastic mount. But, it is very sharp in the center with some fall off to the edges, and has very little barrel distortion from 11mm on. At the 10mm the distortion is noticeable but acceptable and expected for lens of this type. For only $299 the IQ is excellent and there is the added benefit of image stabilization which is unusual in an ultrawide. In most respects, other than build of course, it equals or betters Canon's 10-22 at less than half the price. And with it's silent and smooth AF wth the STM motor, its great for video. Altogether a bargain.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

If I owed a canon...I'd be in my bag.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Anyone with a Canon APS-C should have that lens and the Sigma 18-35 1.8. IMO

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

During this thread the OP has not identified what she want to photograph with this lens. I also own the EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM, and the EF-S 10-22mm. I've used both on my 7D, and found the 10-22mm to be much better than the "L" 16-35mm, mainly because of the "reach" and crop factor. The angle of view from the 10mm end is as a 16mm on a full frame, where as the 16mm end becomes a 24mm angle of view. While in Lake Tahoe last Summer there was a noticeable difference between those two lenses. Image quality was so close to the same it was not a question, just the width of range of view. At MM the distortion was only slightly visible, but not enough to disregard the shot. Lake shots made during the "golden hour" the 10-22mm lens I had to adjust my ISO a bit. The 16-35 f2.8L wide open did not need a ISO adjustment. Both lenses definitely needed a tripod. The choice between these two lenses, of a photographer using a cropped body like the 7D Classic, should rest on the angle of view for the projects she will be working on. If this photographer has any intention, or possibility of ever going to a full frame Canon camera, the 16-35mm f2.8L should be in the bag, but if she intends to stay with cropped body, the 10-22 would be my choice. I use both ff and cropped, so I tend to take landscapes with my 6D in every event.

B