 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / April 2005Canon 10-22mm Lens
I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although over-priced. Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? Is it a good lens despite the price? > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > over-priced. Compared to what? >> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although >> over-priced. > >Compared to what? How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ? >>> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although >>> over-priced. >> >> Compared to what? > > How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ? They are both priced perfectly, if you want to get out there in the 10-11mm range. When Tamron is in distribution and results displayed, that may change.  SignatureFrank ess >> How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ? > >They are both priced perfectly, if you want to get out there in the >10-11mm range. The thing is, "out there" isn't really that far when we're talking 1.6:1 cameras. This has been a real shock to me. Focal lengths that were exotic when I was doing 35mm film, are really just moderate wide angle now. I woulnd never have considered a 18mm lens as anything but a novelty lens before, whereas I used a 24mm f2.8 more than any other lens. >>> How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > but a novelty lens before, whereas I used a 24mm f2.8 more than any > other lens. Very interesting red herring. The thing was, overpriced-compared-to-what. SignatureFrank ess >Very interesting red herring. > >The thing was, overpriced-compared-to-what. In my case, for the budget that has now shrunk to approximately $35.11. :-) Lenses will have to wait. I am very happy with a Tamron zoom lens that I bought, whereas I would not have been able to afford anything more expensive. Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L. They are around the same price, however, the 10-22 is not an 'L' lens. It doesn't even come with a lens hood or case for the money, not exactly a bargain hey. > > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > > over-priced. > > Compared to what? > Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L. <shrug> And cheap compared to a 21mm Distagon for medium format. Neither will give you a nice wide angle on a 1.6 crop factor body, so comparing them is sort of silly. The closest thing currently available is the Sigma 12-24, and it's not a whole lot cheaper, and you give up a surprising amount of field on the wide end, and an f-stop of speed. <snip> >>Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > whole lot cheaper, and you give up a surprising amount of field on the wide > end, and an f-stop of speed. I got that for my D70. It's a big sturdy lens (comes with a case & built in hood) it's full frame, very useful range on a 1.5 crop & I imagine it's crazy wide on a full sensor or film. No barrel distortion, good for buildings indoor & out. Not razor sharp but maintains sharpness across the field and no CA problems. It sucks in so much light from the field of view that I don't think the fast f-stops are needed. Bulbous front element cannot recieve filters but if it could, they would need to be huge so I'm not sure how practical that would be. >>>Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I got that for my D70. I tried it on EOS mount, and largely agree with your observations. A good lens. It's one true advantage over the Canon 10-22 and the upcoming ultrawides from Sigma and Tamron is that it can be mounted on a 35mm sensor or frame body. Apparently the new Sigmas will work as well, though with heavy vignetting (don't know if this is true of the Tamron). > It's a big sturdy lens (comes with a case & > built in hood) it's full frame, very useful range on a 1.5 crop & I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so much light from the field of view that I don't think the fast > f-stops are needed. Oh, it makes a difference, all right. Of course, I'm a fast glass addict and would like f/2.8 in *every* zoom... > Bulbous front element cannot recieve filters but > if it could, they would need to be huge so I'm not sure how practical > that would be. Well, it cannot, so the point is really moot. However, the Canon 10-22 uses the same 77mm size most of the rest of my favorite lenses use. They are expensive compared to the smaller sizes, but practical enough considering the same filters can mount on my glass from 10-400mm. Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L. They are around the same price, however, the 10-22 is not an 'L' lens. It doesn't even come with a lens hood or case for the money, not exactly a bargain hey. > > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > > over-priced. > > Compared to what? > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > over-priced. It is a good sharp lens with good contrast. Distortion is quite low given its ultrawide range. Some users even compared it with L-class lenses. SignatureGautam Majumdar Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com >> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although >> over-priced. > >It is a good sharp lens with good contrast. Distortion is quite low given >its ultrawide range. Some users even compared it with L-class lenses. Where did they do that and what were they smoking at the time? ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ Hi, Check out the Tokina 12-24. Killer value for the money (450 $ or so). Scored 'Super' in German Fotomagazine's test (way above Canon). Arttu > >> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > >> over-priced. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -James Nachtwey- > http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >Hi, >Check out the Tokina 12-24. Killer value for the money (450 $ or so). Scored >'Super' in German Fotomagazine's test (way above Canon). Why should I? I'm sure is it's not the build quality of a Canon L. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although over-priced. > > Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? Is it a good lens despite the > price? The image is mostly very sharp except for fuzzy corners. It seems overpriced considering the imperfect quality and smaller glass needed in an EF-S mount. Many of these photos use the lens: http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/April%2024%202005%20Yos emite/ http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Outdoors/2005-03%20Yosemite/ Such a wide angle lens is difficult to use. Perspective distortion is extreme and difficult to control. Most of your photos will look like crap until you've had a lot of practice. Many of mine still don't come out right. I'm getting good at keeping the image square but I'm still having lots of trouble conveying the true size of the subject in the photograph. Tree covered mountain ranges look like weed covered dunes. > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although over-priced. > > Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? Is it a good lens despite the > price? I have one, and it's fine, though as you state it is overpriced. Look for a Dell 15% off sale, combined with a $ off coupon, and you can get it for around $600. Keep checking techbargains.com for coupons. Unfortunately, Dell doesn't list that lens at this time, but I bought one from them. > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > over-priced. Wow and people say the olympus ZD lenses are high! :-) SignatureStacey > > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > > over-priced. > > Wow and people say the olympus ZD lenses are high! :-) Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the price (799 vs. 1799)*. And it can't take filters and doesn't focus as close (the 10-22 makes a lovely low-mag macro lens). And I hope it's got 20% more resolution than the Canon lens, because it's working on a 20% (linearly) smaller frame. (And is it even released yet???) *: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&is=REG&O=productlis t&sku=358162 David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the > price (799 vs. 1799)*. Oh so on the wide end FOV matters but on the tele end it doesn't? How convinient... So how much cheaper is the canon 400mm f2.8? SignatureStacey > > Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the > > price (799 vs. 1799)*. > > Oh so on the wide end FOV matters but on the tele end it doesn't? How > convinient... So how much cheaper is the canon 400mm f2.8? We've been through this before: since the E-1 and E-300 are a full stop slower* than the 20D, one would be better off financially (and in weight) with a one stop slower 1.2x longer lens on the 20D. Oly fans love to forget that the 4/3 is only a 1.2x format factor away from the APS-C sensor cameras. Besides, neither you nor I can either afford or lift the Oly tele primes, so bringing them up is totally bogus. *: The 20D user gets lower noise images at twice the ISO, so can use a one stop slower lens. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the >> price (799 vs. 1799)*. > >Oh so on the wide end FOV matters but on the tele end it doesn't? How >convinient... So how much cheaper is the canon 400mm f2.8? You need to adjust MTF figures to compare the 300mm f2.8 Zuiko to the 400mm f2.8 L. If a 1.6x and a 2x sensor are having resolution limits of lenses in actual use compared, the lp/mm needs to be multiplied by 1.25 for the 1.6x, or divided by 1.25 for the 2x, which you seem to have forgotten all about in all of your posts. Also, "flat" MTF is not an indicator of maximum quality as you have implied in the past. Which curve would you prefer?: ***** ******* **** *** ******************* I would prefer the top one, and I could emulate the bottom one in software with a low-pass filter if I wanted, but having extra pixel-to-pixel contrast in the center image is generally not a problem, and is, in fact, quite useful if you are going to use a TC. Also, don't forget that you have to trim away everything above 13mm from the center for relevance to 1.6x formats; the Zuiko MTFs are already trimmed to what is relevant. You like to bias information as well as anyone else; don't kid yourself. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although >> > over-priced. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the > price (799 vs. 1799)*. Actually that lens is wider, $1500 real cost, contant aperture, pro weather sealed glass as opposed to a consumer zoom. Wonder what a "L" quality lens like this will cost from canon if a consumer version is $800? I'm sure you don't care but the MTF on this lens is incredible with very little distortion. Also not sure where you came up with it doesn't focus as close either? The ZD focuses to 10cm, the canon is 24cm. And if you bothered to look B&H has them in stock. Lots of samples floating around the web from this lens, it's amazing but I'm sure you'd find a fault with it since your a "canon only" kinda guy... The 11-22 is it's real competition and again is weather sealed pro glass at the same price or less with rebates and also outperforms it. SignatureStacey > >> > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although > >> > over-priced. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Actually that lens is wider, $1500 real cost, Great! It's only US$900 more for the Oly glass. ROFL. > contant aperture, pro weather sealed glass Great! A weather sealed lens that one can't put a protective filter on. Really smart paying US$900 more for the waether sealing. ROFL again. > I'm sure you don't care but the MTF on this lens is incredible with very > little distortion. The 10-22 is seriously amazing. It's as sharp as any lens I own and the distortion is minimal. I can use a polarizing filter on it and I still have that US$900 in my pocket. And I can kick up the ISO to get the DOF I want without getting ridiculous noise. > Also not sure where you came up with it doesn't focus as > close either? http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_714mm.asp Which says 0.25m. The 10-22 focus to 4" from the front element. (Maybe that 0.25m from the sensor?) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.