 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / June 2008Canon 10-22mm lens
Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks! The lens is very good. It is also now supported in Canon Digital Photo Professional for the automatic lens aberration correction if you use it on a supported camera body. Distortions are very low, chromatic aberrations and light fall-off are fairly minor. If you use the automatic correction, that pretty much takes care of it too or you can do it manually in Photoshop or Adobe Camera RAW. Be aware that it takes 77mm filters which cost a bit. Remember to get the hood. Be aware that very thick polarizer filters (like the tamron C-PL filter) vignette a little at 10mm. Otherwise, enjoy! > Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might > be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks! > Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might > be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks! yes, its blimmin expensive  SignatureVass R1, CBR1100xxy www.doubleyolk.co.uk > Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might > be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks! Expensive but good lens. : > Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might : > be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks! : : Expensive but good lens. But is it enough better than the Sigma? A WA is on my wish list for next year (this year it was a 50-150 f/2.8), and I don't want to have to go into hock to get it. Bob > : > Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might > : > be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bob As I have mentioned in other message that you can always check with www.fredmiranda.com for the end users' feedbacks. > But is it enough better than the Sigma? A WA is on my wish list for next > year > (this year it was a 50-150 f/2.8), and I don't want to have to go into > hock to > get it. I've never used the Sigma 10-20. They both go wide. The Canon has the larger aperture at f/3.5-4.5 which you might find nice. Sigma is nice enough to provide the hood and case without charging you extra like Canon does. However there is more to the cost of a lens than the purchase price. You have to consider the residual resale value. If the Canon holds its value better than the Sigma, you can sell it when you are done and recover most of your money. If you were particularly shrewd when purchasing it and bought it for a very low price, used rebates, bought a Canon "refurbished" model, took advantage of varying currency exchange rates over time etc, then you might be able to sell it for as much as you paid for it and it would have been free to use. The same might be true of the Sigma, but often it seems that Sigma lenses depreciate more than Canon lenses. Before buying either, have a look around at the price that both lenses go for used and see which would really cost you less. Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but quite good Best Regards Martin Gorgolewski www.gorgolewski.com > Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might > be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks! > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but quite > good > > Best Regards > Martin Gorgolewski > www.gorgolewski.com I know some people really don't like the Sigmas, but I have one and I've been very happy with it. (Can't afford the Canon.) > > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but quite > > good > > I know some people really don't like the Sigmas, but I have one and I've > been very happy with it. (Can't afford the Canon.) I don't own the Sigma 10-20mm but I have read many people like it, and the images they capture look real nice to me. >> > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but >> > quite [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't own the Sigma 10-20mm but I have read many people like it, and the > images they capture look real nice to me. holding around £ 250 with postage on eBay (non Hong Kong) approx 4 to 5 per week sell regularly. SignatureVass > >> > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but > >> > quite [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > holding around £ 250 with postage on eBay (non Hong Kong) > approx 4 to 5 per week sell regularly. It's around 450-500 US$ so it's about right. comparing to around 800US$ for the Canon 10-22mm (300US$ more expensive), and I don't think the picture is twice better. >> >> > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but >> >> > quite [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > picture > is twice better. What Ken Rockwell has to say: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm Yes, I know he talks about Nikon, but his comments on the Sigma are helpful and here's his comment on the Canon: The Canon 10 - 22 mm is better than any of these four lenses, including the Nikon. "What makes the Canon so superior is its vanishing low distortion. What little distortion the Canon has is completely fixable in PhotoShop CS2. The Canon also has a wider zoom ratio than any of the Nikon, Tamron, Sigma or Tokina lenses." -more online- SignaturePeter > >> >> > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but > >> >> > quite [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Tokina lenses." > -more online- If I look for information of lens I usually look for end users feedbacks on www.fredmiranda.com or www.photo.net instead of review. Also, I do have Canon, Sigma, Tamron lens and I tell that from the lens I have the Canon is usually quicker focus, warmer tone, when Sigma and Tamron may have some color issue (color casting) which can be corrected with Photoshop. BTW, since I am not a landscape photographer so 17-50mm is the widest lens I have, and the wide angle can be very handy. : >> >> > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but : >> >> > quite [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] : The Canon also has a wider zoom ratio than any of the Nikon, Tamron, : Sigma or Tokina lenses." By only 2mm at the high end, and almost everybody has a walking-around lens that bottoms out below 20mm. Bob <snip> > : What Ken Rockwell has to say: > : http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bob Well, if you just compare the "20mm" with "22mm" then you are 100% correct that it's "2mm" difference between them two. But you look beyond the 2mm difference then you may find other differences. > : >> >> > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper > but [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Bob When you deal with wide angle, each mm becomes significant. I am seriously thinking about the Nikon 10.5 whichis only 1.5 mm more than I have. SignaturePeter : > : What Ken Rockwell has to say: : > : ... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : I am seriously thinking about the Nikon 10.5 which is only 1.5 mm more : than I have. At the low end, what you say is true, of course. But my point is that if you have a decent 18-50mm lens (and most serious SLR users do), it doesn't particularly matter whether your wide-angle lens goes to 20mm or 22mm on its high end, because both ranges overlap your 18-50. Bob |
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.