Canon EF-M 11-22 IS Compared to the Competition
Summer 2013’s extreme alpine backpacking trip on Mt Rainier provided me the opportunity to test out the 11-22 IS lens, be sure to checkout the Mt Rainier images and a few other 11-22 IS photos at the bottom of the page.  I have been blown away by the 11-22's quality, especially by the amazingly sharp corners.  The 11-22 IS easily beat the image quality of my 16-35/2.8L II with 5D2, so the 16-35/2.8L II was promptly sold.  When DxO Mark released their review of the 11-22 IS I decided to see how it measures up to the competition.


Summary of Comparison

  • Overall: Nothing seems to come close to delivering this level of wide angle image quality when considering the cost, size and weight, plus the lens includes image stabilization and has excellent flare control.  Distortion is well controlled but there are lenses that offer better performance in this aspect.  Vignetting is the lens’s only notable weak point.  All and all, only Olympus’s 9-18 comes close, but it still falls short of the 11-22 IS since it lacks IS (smallest m4/3 bodies do not include sensor image stabilization), it costs nearly double, the CA is notably worse, and finally the distortion is terrible (auto correction degrades image quality).  Now if the Panasonic GM1/GM5 included sensor image stabilization then the 11-22 IS would have a tougher time taking the top spot for highest wide angle quality for size, weight and cost.

  • Price: At $400 the 11-22 IS has a significantly lower price than any comparable lens other than Canon's 10-18 IS STM lens that makes for a fairly compact setup with Canon's SL1 body.

  • Size: At 2.4” diameter x 2.6” the 11-22 IS ranks as smaller to much smaller, except for the slightly smaller Olympus 9-18.

  • Weight: At 220 grams the 11-22 IS ranks as lighter to much lighter, except for the slightly lighter Olympus 9-18.

  • Sharpness: The 11-22 IS easily beats nine lenses and matches Olympus 9-18, while the much larger, heavier and more expensive Sigma 18-35/1.8, Canon 16-35/4L IS and Nikon 14-24/2.8 offer noticeable improvements.

  • CA: The 11-22 IS beats all lenses while matching the much larger, heavier and more expensive Sigma 18-35/1.8, Canon 17-55/2.8 IS and Canon 16-35/4L IS.

  • Distortion: The 11-22 IS beats six and matches five, with the much larger, heavier and more expensive Sigma 8-16, Canon 10-22 and Canon 16-35/4L IS offering noticeable improvements, making this a moderately weak aspect of the lens.

  • Vignetting: The 11-22 IS beats four and only slightly worse/equal to eight, with the Canon 10-18 IS STM and Sigma 18-35/1.8 offering noticeable improvements, making this a weak aspect of the lens.



Summary of 11-22 IS Peak Performance

  • Considering: combined resolution, CA, distortion and vignetting performance

  • Peak performance = 17mm at f/7.1

  • Best range = 11mm to 22mm at f/5.6 to f/10

  • 11mm (17.6mm) = f/7.1

  • 12mm (19.2mm) = f/7.1

  • 14mm (22.4mm) = f/7.1

  • 17mm (27.2mm) = f/7.1

  • 22mm (35.2mm) = f/7.1



Detailed Comparison Results
1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
2.0x: Panasonic G 7-14 @ 10mm f/5.6

  • Price ($970): much more expensive

  • Size (2.8x3.3): much larger

  • Weight (300g) heavier

  • Sharpness: worse in corners

  • CA: much worse overall

  • Distortion: horrifically bad

  • Vignetting: slightly better

 

1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
2.0x: Olympus ED 9-18 @ 9mm f/5.6

  • Price ($700): much more expensive

  • Size (2.2x1.9): smaller

  • Weight (155g): lighter

  • Sharpness: equal

  • CA: worse

  • Distortion: horrifically bad

  • Vignetting: slightly better


1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.6x: Sigma 8-16 @ 10mm f/8

  • Price ($850): much more expensive

  • Size (3.0x4.2): much larger

  • Weight (555g): much heavier

  • Sharpness: much worse in corners and overall

  • CA: worse overall and much worse in corners

  • Distortion: better

  • Vignetting: slightly better

 

1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.6x: Canon EF-S 10-18 IS @ 10mm f/8

  • Price ($300): notably cheaper

  • Size (2.9x2.8): larger

  • Weight (240g): slightly heavier

  • Sharpness: worse in corners

  • CA: worse overall, especially in corners

  • Distortion: equal

  • Vignetting: better


1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.6x: Canon EF-S 10-22 @ 10mm f/8

  • Price ($650): much more expensive

  • Size (3.3x3.5): much larger

  • Weight (386g): heavier

  • Sharpness: much worse in corners

  • CA: worse in corners

  • Distortion: much better

  • Vignetting: slightly better

 

1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.6x: Sigma 10-20 @ 10mm f/8

  • Price ($650): much more expensive

  • Size (3.4x3.5): much larger

  • Weight (520g): much heavier

  • Sharpness: much worse in corners and overall

  • CA: worse in corners

  • Distortion: slightly better

  • Vignetting: slightly better


1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8
1.6x: Canon EF-S 15-85 IS @ 15mm f/8

  • Price ($700): much more expensive

  • Size (3.2x3.4): much larger

  • Weight (575g): much heavier

  • Sharpness: worse in corners

  • CA: worse in corners

  • Distortion: worse

  • Vignetting: equal

 

1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8
1.6x: Canon 17-55/2.8 IS @ 17mm f/8

  • Price ($880): much more expensive

  • Size (3.3x4.4): much larger

  • Weight (635g): much heavier

  • Sharpness: slightly worse in corners

  • CA: equal

  • Distortion: slightly worse

  • Vignetting: equal


1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8
1.6x: Sigma 18-35/1.8 @ 18mm f/8

  • Price ($800): much more expensive

  • Size (3.1 x 4.8): much larger

  • Weight (811g): insanely heavy

  • Sharpness: better in corners

  • CA: slightly better in center but slightly worse in corners

  • Distortion: worse

  • Vignetting: better

 

1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.5x: Sony E 10-18 @ 10mm f/8

  • Price ($850): much more expensive

  • Size (2.8x2.5): slightly larger

  • Weight (225g): equal

  • Sharpness: worse in corners

  • CA: slightly worse overall

  • Distortion: slightly better

  • Vignetting: horrifically bad

 

1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 17mm f/8
1.5x: Sony E 16-50 @ 16mm f/8

  • Price ($350): slightly less

  • Size (2.5x1.2): smaller

  • Weight (116g): lighter

  • Sharpness: much worse in corners

  • CA: worse in corners

  • Distortion: horrifically bad

  • Vignetting: much worse


1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.0x: Nikon 14-24/2.8G @ 16mm f/8

  • Price ($2,000): insanely expensive

  • Size (3.8x5.2): insanely large

  • Weight (969g): insanely heavy

  • Sharpness: much better overall

  • CA: slightly worse in corners

  • Distortion: equal

  • Vignetting: slightly better


1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.0x: Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II @ 16mm f/8

  • Price ($1,700): insanely expensive

  • Size (3.5x4.4): much larger

  • Weight (635g): much heavier

  • Sharpness: much worse in corners

  • CA: much worse in corners

  • Distortion: slightly better

  • Vignetting: worse


1.6x: Canon EF-M 11-22 IS @ 11mm f/8
1.0x: Canon EF 16-35/4L IS @ 16mm f/8

  • Price ($1,100): much more expensive

  • Size (3.3x4.4): much larger

  • Weight (610g): much heavier

  • Sharpness: much better overall

  • CA: slightly better

  • Distortion: slightly better

  • Vignetting: slightly worse

 

Mt Rainier with 11-22 IS

20130908-IMG_249920130908-IMG_2499

20130908-IMG_251420130908-IMG_2514 20130907-IMG_153820130907-IMG_1538 20130907-IMG_193520130907-IMG_1935 20130908-IMG_226020130908-IMG_2260 20130908-IMG_224420130908-IMG_2244 20130907-IMG_201120130907-IMG_2011 20130907-IMG_218520130907-IMG_2185 20130907-IMG_214420130907-IMG_2144 20130907-IMG_197820130907-IMG_1978 20130907-IMG_218820130907-IMG_2188 20130907-IMG_217020130907-IMG_2170 20131110-IMG_3429to3435_Pano20131110-IMG_3429to3435_Pano 20131020-IMG_2829-220131020-IMG_2829-2 20131110-IMG_346720131110-IMG_3467 20131020-IMG_2882-220131020-IMG_2882-2