| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/14/2010 12:23:56 AM · #1 |
Dear Experts,
I am looking for purchasing wide angle lens for my Canon 400D. I am considering Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
I will highly appreciate your view on this lens with merits,de-merits or any other more capable compatible lens within the budget of $750.
Thanking in advance.
Regards,
Nilesh |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 01:21:42 AM · #2 |
I've heard nothing but good about the canon 10-22. I chose the less expensive Tamron 10-24 and have not been disappointed in it. In fact, my new ribbon was taken with that lens.
BTW, in case you hadn't read my notes on it, I was trying to do a treatment similar to some of your street portraits that I've liked, but with my own local flavor to it. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 01:42:57 AM · #3 |
The Canon 10-22mm is just one of the outstanding ultrawides in the world. Distortion control, freedom from flare, freedom from color fringing, all are outstanding. You can't go wrong with that lens, though it costs a bit more than some of its competitors.
R. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 01:52:31 AM · #4 |
| There is a new Sigma 8-16 out.. It's super tempting.. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 02:01:29 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 03:33:16 AM · #6 |
Will anybody like to share his/her experience on Tokina SP AF 12-24mm ?
I have read it's lot of good reviews especially about sharpness & build quality. I also think it's compatible for canon crop body & full frame cameras. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 04:51:49 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Will anybody like to share his/her experience on Tokina SP AF 12-24mm ?
I have read it's lot of good reviews especially about sharpness & build quality. I also think it's compatible for canon crop body & full frame cameras. |
I can't speak to that specific lens, having nor used it, but I'd caution that the difference between 10mm and 12 mm is substantial. 2mm might not sound like much, but 12mm is a full 20% "narrower" than 10mm, and you can feel it when shooting.
By way of comparison, 10mm on the cropped sensor is like 16mm on full frame, and I can really FEEL how my 17mm is not as wide on the 5D as the 10mm is on the 7D/20D...
R. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 06:44:54 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Will anybody like to share his/her experience on Tokina SP AF 12-24mm ?
I have read it's lot of good reviews especially about sharpness & build quality. I also think it's compatible for canon crop body & full frame cameras. |
I have the 12-24, albeit for Nikon. I am very partial to it, but if I was buying again, I may consider this one
Tokina 11-16 which came onto the market a year or so after I bought mine. It runs to slightly more expensive than the 12-24, but still cheaper than the Canon 10-22.
Maybe worthwhile looking at that too? |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 10:08:31 AM · #9 |
Just to muddy the water, I have the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM which does the job perfectly and has the advantage of being a lot cheaper than the Canon - although I also only ever hear good things about the Canon.
In terms of range, I'd have to agree with  Bear_Music that a couple of mm makes a huge difference in this focal range so I'd probably stick with a 10mm option.
The innate distortions of the superwides tends to mask a lot of the usual minor issues with lenses, and aperture wise there is little creative difference between f3.5 and f5.6 at these focal distances - especially given the usual usage of these lenses - so don't get too hung up on getting the fastest glass in this instance unless you have a specific need. None of the usual candidates in this class of lenses are bad choices really, they all do their job pretty well.
All of the above is in my poorly informed amateur opinion of course :)
|
|
|
|
07/14/2010 10:35:12 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Will anybody like to share his/her experience on Tokina SP AF 12-24mm ?
I have read it's lot of good reviews especially about sharpness & build quality. I also think it's compatible for canon crop body & full frame cameras. |
I can't speak to that specific lens, having nor used it, but I'd caution that the difference between 10mm and 12 mm is substantial. 2mm might not sound like much, but 12mm is a full 20% "narrower" than 10mm, and you can feel it when shooting.
By way of comparison, 10mm on the cropped sensor is like 16mm on full frame, and I can really FEEL how my 17mm is not as wide on the 5D as the 10mm is on the 7D/20D...
R. |
Hence my recommendation of the 8-16.. :) |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 10:45:42 AM · #11 |
I just recently started playing with landscapes on a new Canon 10-22.
It's great, it really is, but it's also worth noting that there IS some CA here and there. I understand that it's one of the better lenses for that though. Not sure how I would feel if it was significantly worse...
Regarding the 8-16mm, it has a 'bulb' front end. This helps it with optical quality in certain ways, however, it also means that you can't use any filters pretty much of any sort unless you do some kind of wild custom thing.
Since I started really trying to improve my abilities with landscapes with the aid of an experienced shooter, I discovered that there are people out there that actually don't choose to use filters, relying instead on Post Processing, especially HDR and tone mapping.
If you aren't afraid to get your feet wet with that, then it probably wouldn't be an issue to try the 8-16. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 10:48:18 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Will anybody like to share his/her experience on Tokina SP AF 12-24mm ?
I have read it's lot of good reviews especially about sharpness & build quality. I also think it's compatible for canon crop body & full frame cameras. |
I have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens. I have been pleased with it so far. Excellent sharpness and contrast. I must admit to getting some color fringing (chromatic aberration) at times, but nothing too bad. The Canon is supposed to be excellent in that respect. I compared this lens with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5 and found the Tokina to be sharper across the frame in most test shots. But in real world usage you probably would not see those differences. There are certainly a lot of excellent images on DPC that were shot with the Sigma. The Tamron 10-24mm had just come out when I bought my Tokina. If I had it to do over, I would give serious consideration to to Tamron. All in all I am happy with the Tokina.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2010 10:51:48 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
I just recently started playing with landscapes on a new Canon 10-22.
It's great, it really is, but it's also worth noting that there IS some CA here and there. I understand that it's one of the better lenses for that though. Not sure how I would feel if it was significantly worse...
Regarding the 8-16mm, it has a 'bulb' front end. This helps it with optical quality in certain ways, however, it also means that you can't use any filters pretty much of any sort unless you do some kind of wild custom thing.
Since I started really trying to improve my abilities with landscapes with the aid of an experienced shooter, I discovered that there are people out there that actually don't choose to use filters, relying instead on Post Processing, especially HDR and tone mapping.
If you aren't afraid to get your feet wet with that, then it probably wouldn't be an issue to try the 8-16. |
Another important point is that the main filter I tend to use (CPL) is useless on this lens because of the wide angle.. Essentially, the sky will looks super weird with a CPL on the lens at this width, so that fact that one doesn't fit doesn't actually bother me at all :) (on my 12-24, also a blub lens..) |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 10:55:43 AM · #14 |
| Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 11:05:25 AM · #15 |
| One reason I chose the Tamron over the Sigma is that reviews and feedback suggested the Sigma had complex distortion at some focal lengths that was difficult to fix in PP. The Tamron was rated pretty good in this area. I like strong perspectives with straight lines, so the Tamron suited me better. For the types of shots that I see you mostly doing, that's probably not an issue. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 11:06:01 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
Sounds to me like it's your best choice.. the 10-22 sounds like an excellent lens for your purpose. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 11:08:01 AM · #17 |
One thing that Bear mentioned once is that APS-C lenses do have some limitations due to the physical size of the aperture. Apparently, ultra-wide angle lenses are affected significantly more by diffraction.
He explained it kind of like this:
The aperture is a fraction - focal length/X.
For f/10 at 10mm, you have 10/10 = 1mm aperture.
For f/10 at 100mm, you have 100/10 = 10mm aperture.
The smaller the physical aperture, the more diffraction can affect your final result.
*****
Because of this, most serious landscape shooters look to FF as the answer.
This means that the user base for ultra-wides may not be as concerned with 'quality without compromise' as someone shooting FF.
I *know* I am going to have to accept some compromise with the 7D + 10-22.
I still think it's boatloads of fun tho! :)
|
|
|
|
07/14/2010 11:11:32 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
I think many people opt away from the canon purely due to the cost/benefit ratio - there are several excellent and less expensive alternatives and for many a superwide is a somewhat niche lens - but it does seem to fit your requirements well!
Message edited by author 2010-07-14 11:13:23. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 12:01:52 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
I have read from several sources that a CPL filter should not be used on any ultra wide angle lens. The effect of a CPL depends on the angle to the sun, and the lens covers such a wide expanse of sky that you get banding and other weirdness from the filter. You can still use ND filters, etc. just not a polarizer. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 01:23:39 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by dswann:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
I have read from several sources that a CPL filter should not be used on any ultra wide angle lens. The effect of a CPL depends on the angle to the sun, and the lens covers such a wide expanse of sky that you get banding and other weirdness from the filter. You can still use ND filters, etc. just not a polarizer. |
Funny enough, you don't even need an UWA to see the effect, often @ 28mm on a 1.6 crop I can STILL see the effect when using a polarizer - it's just much, much worse on an UWA lens.. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 01:30:58 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by dswann:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
I have read from several sources that a CPL filter should not be used on any ultra wide angle lens. The effect of a CPL depends on the angle to the sun, and the lens covers such a wide expanse of sky that you get banding and other weirdness from the filter. You can still use ND filters, etc. just not a polarizer. |
Funny enough, you don't even need an UWA to see the effect, often @ 28mm on a 1.6 crop I can STILL see the effect when using a polarizer - it's just much, much worse on an UWA lens.. |
Anyway I am not interested in 8-16 & dont want a debate on that lens further. I basically want feedback on Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, sigma 10-20 & Tamron 12-24.
Message edited by author 2010-07-14 13:35:00. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 02:16:11 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by dswann:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
I have read from several sources that a CPL filter should not be used on any ultra wide angle lens. The effect of a CPL depends on the angle to the sun, and the lens covers such a wide expanse of sky that you get banding and other weirdness from the filter. You can still use ND filters, etc. just not a polarizer. |
Funny enough, you don't even need an UWA to see the effect, often @ 28mm on a 1.6 crop I can STILL see the effect when using a polarizer - it's just much, much worse on an UWA lens.. |
Anyway I am not interested in 8-16 & dont want a debate on that lens further. I basically want feedback on Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, sigma 10-20 & Tamron 12-24. |
I think you may have missed my point.. All of those lenses will be effectively useless with a polarizer.
If you're not using a polarizer, then what types of filters are you intending to use? The reason I ask is that most of those filters are actually much better when done in post processing (less glass = cleaner image)..
So I'm just curious what filters are so amazing that you can't live without them.. (I might have to go buy some! :) ) |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 02:40:10 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I think you may have missed my point.. All of those lenses will be effectively useless with a polarizer.
If you're not using a polarizer, then what types of filters are you intending to use? The reason I ask is that most of those filters are actually much better when done in post processing (less glass = cleaner image)..
So I'm just curious what filters are so amazing that you can't live without them.. (I might have to go buy some! :) ) |
A couple points, Cory:
1: the CPL is NOT "basically useless" on the 10-22mm lens; I have one and have used it quite a bit. It is true that at 10mm it's hopeless in the sky, the lens is just too wide by half, BUT it makes a good starting point and you can mask and apply a gradient in the color of the polarized sky to even out the unpolarized part, so it's doable.
2. the CPL is not limited, for usefulness, to skies; in fact, in many ways its greatest utility is in saturating colors by removing scattered reflections from surfaces and in reducuing or eliminating surface reflections in general, like when you have a lot of foreground with water running through it, like low tide ripples on ocean beaches, whatever.
3. Other very useful filters would include the category of ND filters to increase daylight exposure times for soft effects with moving water, and graduated ND filters for bringing contrasty scenes into reasonable balance where true multiple-exposure HDR is not an option.
So, in a nutshell, there are valid reasons to be concerned about an ultrawide's compatibility with affordable filters :-)
R. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 02:45:25 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
I basically want feedback on Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, sigma 10-20 & Tamron 12-24. |
Buy the Sigma or Canon. If you bought the Tamron, I would have to share the 15 slots on the equipment page for that lens with you. |
|
|
|
07/14/2010 02:49:11 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by dswann:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions. |
I have read from several sources that a CPL filter should not be used on any ultra wide angle lens. The effect of a CPL depends on the angle to the sun, and the lens covers such a wide expanse of sky that you get banding and other weirdness from the filter. You can still use ND filters, etc. just not a polarizer. |
Funny enough, you don't even need an UWA to see the effect, often @ 28mm on a 1.6 crop I can STILL see the effect when using a polarizer - it's just much, much worse on an UWA lens.. |
Anyway I am not interested in 8-16 & dont want a debate on that lens further. I basically want feedback on Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, sigma 10-20 & Tamron 12-24. |
As Cory stated, all of the lenses that you listed will have issues with a circular polarizer filter in some sky shots. However, you could still use it for situations without sky in the frame. That being said, if money is no object then I would recommend the Canon (purely based on what I have read since I shoot Nikon). Next I would recommend either the Tamron 10-24 or the Tokina 11-16. Just my humble opinion.
Message edited by author 2010-07-14 14:52:01. |
|
