I bought the Canon efs 10-22.  I don't think it is a lens that all that many
folks want or need, by the way.  It works fine for me but honestly don't use
it all that much.

I don't use it a lot however it is essential.

Excellent lens, but yes, it is pricey.

You can get it for around $600 if you hit a Dell 20% off accessory sale
combined with a coupon code, though there is tax from Dell. Open an
account with them and you get an extra 2% off I think.

The only down-side of course, is that it's an EF-s lens, and the world
is moving toward full-frame where the EF-s won't work. Still, I think
that both Canon and Nikon will continue to build low-end SLRs with a 1.5
to 1.6 crop factor, so some Canon user might buy the 10-22 if you change
to full frame, so you can probably recover 1/2 the price down the road.

I use it fairly regularly, but it's not my "walking around lens."

There is always the option of the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM which
would supposedly work on future full frame D-SLRs, but with Sigma you
never know. I wouldn't plan that far ahead, buy the Canon 10-22 and be
happy.

Today l e o commented courteously on the subject at hand

I have a Canon 17-40mm and a 24-70mm that cost over $2,100 and
a Sigma 18-125mm that cost about $400. The Sigma has a nice
zoom range and is small and light. The Canon "L glass" zooms
are much bigger and very heavy (to me), but their quality
compared to the Rebel XT kit lens and Sigma is far superior.

Only you know the real answer to your question. To give you
some perspective, what kind of photography do you do, what
subject(s) do you shoot? daylight? available light? flash?
view-only? print to large sizes? Fitness of purpose and
expectations for detail, sharpness, color fidelity, etc. weigh
heavily, it isn't as simple as price alone.

Your note actually implies a $700 prime wide-angle, not
necessarily a zoom, but I just added my two cents worth on the
price issue. 99 44/100% of my subjects are cars, evenly split
between daylight car shows in good weather and indoor
shows/museums in bad weather using flash. I don't like
spending that much money on glass and I sure as hell don't
like hauling 3 lenses around that total 4 1/2 pounds, plus the
camera body plus another pound for a Canon 430EX external
flash. But, after diddling around for years trying to get
decent pictures with EVFs, I decided to spend a little more
than I'd like to get the quality. And, I have.

One piece of personal advice, buy from a local store that'll
let you return for a full refund, even if you just don't like
the lens. You can't overuse the refund currency, but if you're
spending big bucks, how can you possibly know if the lens(es)
you're comtempating will do the job for you or not if you
don't shoot a few hundred "typical" shots?

get a third-party lens? <<

Silly question to ask, once you realize that there are Canon dSLR
forums at various web sites, where users have their total Canon
inventory with their signature automatically listed, and people put in
RED text those lenses which are 'L' lenses, which can easily cost $1200
each !!!

I got the sigma 12-24 for Nikon because it was cheaper and full frame.
It's very cool and I use it often but I really doubt there was any need
to go full frame and I'd really rather have a little better image
quality and less flare, etc.

Why waste money on a 16-35 that will only fit a small sensor camera
and as no growth path?

**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"

                    David Douglas Duncan
                Speaking on why in Vietnam
             he worked only in black and white
     http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/

Here's an option that may help you decide
http://www.rentglass.com/shop.aspx?type=Canon

I rented the 400L 5.6 for a couple weeks to help me decide if I want
throw down that kind of $
_____
Slack

I got the 10-22 EF-S lense and I love it. Cost some $$$, but I don't care -
if I want it I buy it.

Here are some samples shoot with the lense:

http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/show.php?album=10-22mm

I considered the Canon 10-22, Tamron 11-18, Sigma 10-20, and Tokina
12-24 - I ended up purchasing the Tokina.

I chose the Tokina for the following reasons.

1. Build quality - the lens appears to be much more ruggedly built
than ANY of the others, according to reviews.  I've handled the
Tamron, and actually used the Canon 10-22. The Tokina's manual focus
is excellent, much better than the other two I've tried. (It's also
much heavier).

2. Coverage - for me, the 12-24 range (19-38 on my 350D) was a better
match with my Canon 28-135; these two lenses make up my usual kit. I
personally would consider the Tamron's coverage at the long end too
limiting; the 24mm approaches the 27mm normal (i.e. diagonal) for the
APS-C sensor.

3. Ability for limited use on non-EF-S bodies.  I have used the Tokina
on my Canon Elan.  If the lens hood is not used, the lens provides
full fame coverage from about 17mm - 24mm.  Zooming wider provides
more angular coverage with increasing vignetting.  At 14mm, the image
circle just reached the sides of a FF sensor.  At 12mm, it falls well
short if the sides but still covers most of the horizontal edge of the
image.  FF purists would probably find this aberrant if not abhorrent,
but one can still make some very nice images, especially when cropped.

4. Image quality - The images from the Tokina are very similar to
those from the Canon (I speak from direct experience with both
lenses).  Yes, the Canon is ultimately sharper, but one has to look
closely at high magnification on the computer monitor to see the
difference.  This corresponds to examining a 48 inch wide print at a
distance of one foot - plus, I have two repeatedly switch between the
two images to see the difference.  The difference is there, but it's
pretty small.

5. Cost - the Tokina includes a very nice lens hood - one more item
that needs to be figured into the Canon's cost.

Complaints -

1. The Tokina lacks an indicator on the barrel for indexing the lens
on the camera body (there is one on the lens mount).  I ended up
putting a small drop of paint on the barrel.

2. No lens case is included. This is really just an observation, as I
don't use lens cases myself, just a Zero Halliburton case for
everything.

Other comments -

I'll admit to a bias against Sigma. My first experience with them was
25 years ago.  I got burned - incredibly bad resolution (135mm f/1.8
Canon FD mount).  My second experience was about 15 years ago. I got
burned again this time the lens was falling apart right out of the box
(400mm f/5.6 APO Canon EF mount).  My last experience was about 10
years ago, with my sister's Sigma 28-70 lens on her Rebel; it came
apart in her hands while shooting.  She gave the pieces to me and I
was eventually able to get the lens back together again.  It will work
on my Elan, but not on my 350D (EEE error message). Never again.

John

I bought it last week and used it all week long on a trip.  I love it!  I'm
glad I didn't buy a 3rd party.  I'd show some samples, but my site is all
bunked up right now due to problems with my ISP.

Your options are:

- AFS-C size: Canon 10-22 mm, Sigma 10-20 mm, Tamron 11-18 mm, and
 Tokina 12-24 mm (really 13-23 mm)
- Full frame: Sigma 12-24mm (Popeye).

I just got the Sigma 10-20 mm f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM:
Here is a couple of shots from yesterdays try-out:
- http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=224540
- http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=111196483&size=o

I am happy with the lens.  It costs less than the Canon, and it is is
wider than the Tamron and Tokina.  It controls flare well, there is
very little CA, and it is reasonably sharp.  (The full size TIFF-files
are sharper then the downsized JPGs I've linked to above.).

The build-quality is excellent, but the AF sometimes hunt a little.
It comes with a petral-shaped lens hood (which you need to buy extra
for the Canon and a nice lens case.

I have it for my 20D. I love it. I love landscapes. It depends on your
compositional bent. I use a 77mm polarizer with it and it really makes
it for me. It lets you play with space. I'm willing to deal with the
negatives of it. I'd buy it again.

rgds
Ken

You think that's *expensive*?  That's pretty darned cheap for a
pro-grade lens.  (Is the Canon 10-22 considered a pro-grade lens?)

I paid $600 for my Tokina 12-24mm.  Note that the Nikon 12-24mm is
about $900.