Question for you photographer types
Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:59 pm
OK...We've all seen the awesome pictures posted here. Not by me but most other camera bugs on the forum.
Someone out there MUST have a Canon EF-S 10-22 lens. If that's you, please tell me everything about it. ie. Should I buy one? What are your pictures like?
That sort of thing. I'd really appreciate any assist as I've been looking at wide angles from Canon, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. Canon seems to get the best reviews but is a bit pricey. But, like my old Granny used to say, "You get what you pay for." Not very original, I know, but she really did say that. (That and a bunch of other "down home" stuff.)
I'd really appreciate any assist.
Shoot me a PM if you like. Don't want to clutter up the forum with stuff that very few are interested in.
Mudge the researcher
Someone out there MUST have a Canon EF-S 10-22 lens. If that's you, please tell me everything about it. ie. Should I buy one? What are your pictures like?
That sort of thing. I'd really appreciate any assist as I've been looking at wide angles from Canon, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron. Canon seems to get the best reviews but is a bit pricey. But, like my old Granny used to say, "You get what you pay for." Not very original, I know, but she really did say that. (That and a bunch of other "down home" stuff.)
I'd really appreciate any assist.
Shoot me a PM if you like. Don't want to clutter up the forum with stuff that very few are interested in.
Mudge the researcher
Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:50 pm
Hehe sorry I got a Sigma and Tamron lens but I use Nikon!
Tue Oct 04, 2005 11:13 pm
NathanT24 wrote:Hehe sorry I got a Sigma and Tamron lens but I use Nikon!
Don't worry, one day you'll save up to buy a real camera.
just kidding
Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:11 am
Oh thats cold Scott LOL, I used my Nikon at Airsho last year, and its not even Digital, I will have a real camera when I can afford a Nikon D70 Digital SLR!
Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:08 am
Mudge, one of my fellow 'toggies at the Shuttleworth Collection has recently bought the Sigma 12-24 and thinks it's great. It's his only non-Canon lens and I respect his judgment in all matters photographic. The Sigma's cheaper as well.
My choice for wide angle work (although not as wide as the 10-20) is the Canon 17-40 L which has given me some lovely shots during the 18 months that I've owned it.
My choice for wide angle work (although not as wide as the 10-20) is the Canon 17-40 L which has given me some lovely shots during the 18 months that I've owned it.
Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:20 am
Wow, 10-22 would be a lot of fun. But I really want a good Macro lens first.
I have the 17-?? that came with my Canon XT.
I have the 17-?? that came with my Canon XT.
Wed Oct 05, 2005 9:07 am
I've used the Tokina 20-35mm f2.8 ATX Pro with my Nikon F4 to produce some great shots. The f2.8 really helps in those indoor, low-light museum situations. Cost is about $325 in like new , but used condition.
With a digital SLR body, the image sensor sees only the center 2/3 of what a 35mm film frame would see, so to get the focal length equivalent to a 35mm film camera, you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 for Canon cameras and by 1.5 for Nikons. Thus the 20-35mm lens above used on a digital Canon body would be equivalent to a 32-56mm lens. This is why you are seeing so many wide angle lenses for digital bodies in the 10-15mm range. The multiplier works to your advantage at the telephoto end of a lens. A 28-200mm would become a 42-300mm.
You also have to be careful if you are thinking of buying one of the made-for-digital lenses to use on a film camera. On some, the image will not fill a 35mm frame.
Walt
With a digital SLR body, the image sensor sees only the center 2/3 of what a 35mm film frame would see, so to get the focal length equivalent to a 35mm film camera, you need to multiply the focal length by 1.6 for Canon cameras and by 1.5 for Nikons. Thus the 20-35mm lens above used on a digital Canon body would be equivalent to a 32-56mm lens. This is why you are seeing so many wide angle lenses for digital bodies in the 10-15mm range. The multiplier works to your advantage at the telephoto end of a lens. A 28-200mm would become a 42-300mm.
You also have to be careful if you are thinking of buying one of the made-for-digital lenses to use on a film camera. On some, the image will not fill a 35mm frame.
Walt
Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:20 am
TimApNy wrote:I have the 17-?? that came with my Canon XT.
That would be the EF-S 18-55, the sole lens I have for my 350D at the moment.
Mudge, it's worth noting that the lens your asking about, as an EF-S lens is supposed to only work with Canon's newer digital SLRs(I forget which exact models).
Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:21 am
dj51d wrote:TimApNy wrote:I have the 17-?? that came with my Canon XT.
That would be the EF-S 18-55, the sole lens I have for my 350D at the moment.
Mudge, it's worth noting that the lens your asking about, as an EF-S lens is supposed to only work with Canon's newer digital SLRs(I forget which exact models).
I stand Corrected
Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:16 am
The !0-22 lens works only with the Digital Rebel and the 20D (which is what I have.) After reading a bunch of the reviews, I found that the Canon had more positives than the others. So I went ahead and ordered one.
Thanks for all your input.
Mudge the appreciative
ps...Well...Isn't the reason I send Mrs. Mudge to work every day so I can afford more toys?
Thanks for all your input.
Mudge the appreciative
ps...Well...Isn't the reason I send Mrs. Mudge to work every day so I can afford more toys?
Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:01 pm
I'm using the sigma 18-50 2.8 and I am happy with it. All the Nieuport 17 shots here http://www.pbase.com/swamp1/biplanes are with it. It is a little short for air to air.
Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:27 pm
I have the 10-22 and I think it is really great for what it is. Obviously there's apparent distortion at thr widest angle and there can be focussing issues for things up close in the middle and far away by the edge but it's the only way to get a picture in many cramped museums etc or for getting really wide landscapes. In general the images look pretty sharp to me across the full frame. I've seen occasional purple blooming from specific lighting situations but nothing like you can get on some lenses.
Onr thing to watch is that it comes without a lens hood. I also have the 17-40 which comes with the same hood as the 10-22 needs so I just swap it around but I would imagine it makes a big difference in some cases.
Here's a picture I certainly couldn't have taken without the wide-angle.
Onr thing to watch is that it comes without a lens hood. I also have the 17-40 which comes with the same hood as the 10-22 needs so I just swap it around but I would imagine it makes a big difference in some cases.
Here's a picture I certainly couldn't have taken without the wide-angle.