| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2006 11:45:53 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
Update
Tokina AF 12-24mm AT-X Pro DX f4: 3
Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM f/3.5-4.5: 2
Sigma 10-20mm EX DC HSM f/4-5.6: 2
Sigma AF 12-24mm HSM EX DG f4.5-5.6: 1
I know some will NOT work on a full frame so if I ever twist my own arm hard enough and move up, I might have to leave the non-full frame lens behind. Yikes - something ELSE to add to the matrix. |
The Sigma 12-24 is the only lens on your list that provides full frame coverage for 35mm.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 13:13:49. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:04:16 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by tcmartin:
The Canon does not come with a hood. That is another $35. for those of you that shoot with these, do you ofter use the hood (which I believe is a pedal in most cases). |
I have the Canon 10-22 and bought the separate hood, but I've rarely used it. The 10-22 is quite flare resistant. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:18:07 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by tcmartin:
The Canon does not come with a hood. That is another $35. for those of you that shoot with these, do you ofter use the hood (which I believe is a pedal in most cases). |
I have the Canon 10-22 and bought the separate hood, but I've rarely used it. The 10-22 is quite flare resistant. |
Yeah, it IS remarkably low-flare. Still, I have and use the hood. A little edge protection when I'm moving the camera around, and it looks way cool too ;-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:20:58 PM · #29 |
I'm planning a Montana trip early next July - highlighting Glacier NP and I'm hoping to buy a wide angle something before then so this thread is great. I guess I'm not too concerned about distortion when shooting mts and plains that are far away but I still want to minimize distortion. So it sounds like the Canon might not be the way to go then??
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:26:52 PM · #30 |
Never had a problem with distortion on the canon. Only problem I have is self induced keystoning from not holding the camera parrallel to whatever building I'm pointing it at.
edit: the hood from the 24-105L fits the 10-22. Only downside is you see a bit of it on the edges if you are dialed out to 10mm.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 12:27:26. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:32:00 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Never had a problem with distortion on the canon. Only problem I have is self induced keystoning from not holding the camera parrallel to whatever building I'm pointing it at.
edit: the hood from the 24-105L fits the 10-22. Only downside is you see a bit of it on the edges if you are dialed out to 10mm. |
That hood might fit each lens but hood for the 10-22 is quite different than the hood for the 24-105. Well, maybe not drastically different but they are different and you will not see the hood at 10mm if you are using the one specifically for the 10-22.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 12:33:02. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:39:09 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Never had a problem with distortion on the canon. Only problem I have is self induced keystoning from not holding the camera parrallel to whatever building I'm pointing it at.
edit: the hood from the 24-105L fits the 10-22. Only downside is you see a bit of it on the edges if you are dialed out to 10mm. |
That hood might fit each lens but hood for the 10-22 is quite different than the hood for the 24-105. Well, maybe not drastically different but they are different and you will not see the hood at 10mm if you are using the one specifically for the 10-22. |
Heheh, yeah I kind of figured that the proper hood wouldn't jut into the picture. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 12:42:45 PM · #33 |
Great that this came up, as I'm about to buy a wide angle myself. I've done a lot of reading across the net about the Tokina 12-24 and the Sigma 10-20, and right now am leaning toward the Tokina.
Tokina: Pros - solid, heavy build, lots of good reviews, good quality, constant F/4 images. Cons - some distortion/CA/etc., never owned a Tokina so don't know how good they are as a brand.
Sigma: Pros - 2mm wider, lighter
Cons - F/5.6, lots of reviews indicate lower image quality, cheap build
I really like the idea of the wider zoom range, but am wary from all the negative things I've heard about the Sigma. Yet no one on here has complained about it.
Any other votes or comments?
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:10:28 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
I'm planning a Montana trip early next July - highlighting Glacier NP and I'm hoping to buy a wide angle something before then so this thread is great. I guess I'm not too concerned about distortion when shooting mts and plains that are far away but I still want to minimize distortion. So it sounds like the Canon might not be the way to go then?? |
There is a great deal of confusion here as to what "distortion" means in ultra wide angle photography. What most people call "distortion" is simply built into the UWA package; when your viewing angle gets to like 100 degrees, the light at the edge of the frame is traveling at a SIGNIFICANTLY more oblique angle than the light at the center, and objects are "stretched out" accordingly. There's no getting around this, it makes no difference who the manufacturer is.
If you want to actually SEE an analog of what I am talking about, put a marble down on a white sheet of paper and shine a bright flashlight at it; see how the shadow's pretty "normal" looking if you keep the light at, say, 45 degrees or greater above the marble? But as you move the light down, the shadow will stretch out into a more and more pronounced elliptical shape. That's what's going on here.
When you shoot with an UWA lens and have very near and more distant objects both in the frame, you need to be totally aware of what's happening on the edges of your image. This is just the way it is.
But from an OPTICAL point of view (what we use to compare lenses). "distortion" means something else altogether; for our purposes, the key distortions are barrel distortion and pincushioning. On UWA lenses, the latter is the one we mostly have to watch for. Extreme, radical pincushioning is what you have with a fisheye lens. Less extreme pincushioning used to be a very common (and nagging) problem with UWA photography; straight lines near the image edges and horizon lines would render as slight but noticeable arcs, and then we'd have to correct for this with PP tools.
Now, in THAT area the Canon 10-22mm is the class of the bunch, which is why I bought it in the first place. It has essentially NO distortion throughout its range. Couple this with the fact that it is a remarkably flare-free lens (which is vital since in 10mm landscape shots you get the sun near the edge of, or actually IN, the frame a lot.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 13:36:04.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:27:50 PM · #35 |
Thanks for the awesome info, Rob.
Now - is the Canon worth the extra $$?
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 01:35:32 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
Thanks for the awesome info, Rob.
Now - is the Canon worth the extra $$? |
For me, it was. And I was on a very limited budget. Still am, for that matter.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 02:03:29 PM · #37 |
I have a Canon 10-22 as wanted ultra wide angle and was going to use its 10mm most of the time (otherwise I'd take my 17-40). But in general, what I have heard and seen in other forums and reviews is that if you don't need those extra 2mm (actually it's a bit more since the Tokina is a real 12,7mm), the Tokina 12-24 seems to be a slightly better choice:
- More affordable price and including hood
- More robust construction and handling (the Canon is not an L)
- Flat f4 along the whole range
- Great lens (there are lots of comparisions between these two lenses and no one results in a clear winner in optical performance)
- A lot of people loving it and looking for it in the second hand market what makes it easier to sell than the Canon at least in Spain.
Both are superb lenses anyway. If you are not happy with them, there is no UWA zoom lens on the market for your camera.
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 14:05:04. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:10:58 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
Now - is the Canon worth the extra $$? |
YES YES YES |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:13:54 PM · #39 |
| I vote Canon EF-S 10-22mm. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:23:55 PM · #40 |
I love my 10-22 but i''m selling it because I just got a 5d yesterday (happy boy). Highly recommend the lens althoughI have not used the other brands. The canon does not say "L" on it but damn its sharp and I think the build it great.
nick |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:30:49 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
Originally posted by Kaups:
Now - is the Canon worth the extra $$? |
YES YES YES |
I'm going to take that as a "yes".
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:31:30 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
I love my 10-22 but i''m selling it because I just got a 5d yesterday (happy boy). Highly recommend the lens althoughI have not used the other brands. The canon does not say "L" on it but damn its sharp and I think the build it great.
nick |
Why are you selling the lense?
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:37:27 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
Originally posted by boysetsfire:
I love my 10-22 but i''m selling it because I just got a 5d yesterday |
Why are you selling the lense? |
It won't work on a 5D. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:45:17 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
It won't work on a 5D. |
Oh that's lame. How much are you selling it for?
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:47:16 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Kaups:
Originally posted by scalvert:
It won't work on a 5D. |
Oh that's lame. How much are you selling it for? |
If I get $750 AUD I will be happy. I offered it to a friend but he is yet to get back to me, |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:52:46 PM · #46 |
Another vote for the Tokina 12-24 it is an AWSOME lens best Tokina has ever made
never tried the Canon but I can imagine its pretty good too.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 03:59:26 PM · #47 |
Good enough for me! I'm going home tonight and ordering a Tokina! I think CameraBox.com was selling them for $420ish, and they looked okay on ResellerRatings, so there I go. I can't wait!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 05:32:50 PM EDT.
