Why is there no "L" =< 10mm?

[gonzophoto]

I really want something in this focal length with the 1.6x crop but Looking at the images from the 10-22 the lens is a tad soft. It would be nice to get a 2.8 L in this range.

Keep wishing? Or wait patiently?

[august23]

16-35???

[Wilt]

Keep waiting...Canon says it designated 'L' to no lens with EFS coverage, and an L 10mm with FF coverage is unlikely.

[Buggbairn]

I once did a test of IQ with my EF-S 10-22mm V's my 17-40L and there was very little difference between them, some members actually prefered the non L image.

Perhaps your 10-22mm needs looked at ?

[gonzophoto]

I once did a test of IQ with my EF-S 10-22mm V's my 17-40L and there was very little difference between them, some members actually prefered the non L image.

Perhaps your 10-22mm needs looked at ?

I don't own a 10-22

If there was a 2.8 professional build I would own one.

[august23]

Closest you'll get to that wide is the 14mm L. And that is a rediculously overpriced lens.

[Hawg Hanner]

I don't own a 10-22.

Then how do you know it is a tad soft?

Most experienced Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM users believe this lens rivals the resolution and sharpness of L-quality lenses. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I doubt seriously a 10mm prime is in Canon's future. The 14mm L is pricey enough. Your other option is to get a camera with a full-frame sensor, which has many more wide angle lens options.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/295270244_8f0c1dae20_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/122/295270242_1f6f2cfe2d_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/90/272446489_6f40929eed_o.jpg

[cjm]

10mm is a fisheye. The efs 10-22 is also partly a fish eye but it is framed/cropped inside the lens for crop cameras just past the fishy part and ground down just enough to give mostly the appearance of a normal lens. But it is in no way anything like a 24-70L or any other normal zoom lens. Ever notice how the crop UWA lenses look so completely different then all other lenses?

The widest you can get for FF is the 14mm L and that is all you will ever be able to get. And few people buy the 14mm because the 16-35 is a better deal.

[Don Powell]

I too am wondering how you can say that the 10-22 is a tad soft. It is a different lens, so it is not as easy to do a side to side comparison, unless you compare it with the same focal length. My lens is very sharp, and I would say it is comparable to my L lenses.
Best wishes. Don

[cjm]

Then how do you know it is a tad soft?

Most experienced Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM users believe this lens rivals the resolution and sharpness of L-quality lenses. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I doubt seriously a 10mm prime is in Canon's future.

Amen to that! I completely agree. At first I thought, bah this lens is soft, then I gave it a chance and wow what a lens. Close enough to L and not be one, in my mind. And the price of it is L price. Even the build is L, it just is not a L because it is not weather sealed and there will never be a efs L lens.

[ed rader]

Then how do you know it is a tad soft?

Most experienced Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM users believe this lens rivals the resolution and sharpness of L-quality lenses. Don't knock it 'til you try it. I doubt seriously a 10mm prime is in Canon's future. The 14mm L is pricey enough. Your other option is to get a camera with a full-frame sensor, which has many more wide angle lens options.




yowsa Hawg Hanner :D !

ed rader

[Buggbairn]

Side by side comparison of my 10-22mm & 17-40L

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=168826

There's nowt soft about the non L lens ;)

[cwphoto]

HH, those snow shots are stunning.

[JaGWiRE]

HH, those snow shots are stunning.
Ditto.

[tellingthm]

Ditto.

i especially love that first one. great work.

[StealthLude]

10-22 is a grade A lens. Its up there with the best of em.

[calicokat]

The 10-22 is super sharp, not sure where you saw that it was not

[gonzophoto]

I was looking through the galleries at Pbase, and most the images just looked a bit soft. I guess I just got bad examples. (I hate how that site randomly gives you images)

[350D_Noob]

I was looking through the galleries at Pbase, and most the images just looked a bit soft. I guess I just got bad examples. (I hate how that site randomly gives you images)


Please. The only website you really need to look at is this one. Look at the 10 - 22 archive and I'm sure it'll help you understand why all those people love it so much.

[gonzophoto]

Please. The only website you really need to look at is this one. Look at the 10 - 22 archive and I'm sure it'll help you understand why all those people love it so much.

Its just so much easier to see a huge amount of pics quick. This way you get to see dozens of versions of the lens quick.

[embdude]

Keep waiting...Canon says it designated 'L' to no lens with EFS coverage, and an L 10mm with FF coverage is unlikely.

Yeah, well, Canon also stated the original 18-55 EFS was a one off, and would not be designing any more...

[JaGWiRE]

Yeah, well, Canon also stated the original 18-55 EFS was a one off, and would not be designing any more...
That would had been one hell of a waste of an mount, eh?

[CScottMcQueen]

That first shot is amazing

[red hot sheep]

I have the 10-22mm and it is fantastic. Most fun lens I have.

[Marsellus_Wallace]

Side by side comparison of my 10-22mm & 17-40L

Nice work. Funny that the 10-22 is clearly wider at 17mm than the 17-40.

I think the OP is a little bit out of his mind, refusing to buy a wideangle because it doesn't have a 'professional build'. The 10-22 is very well built, and besides, who cares how canon calls their stuff?

The APS-C wideangles do not look different because they are really fisheyes, as a matter of fact they are not. They look like they do because they start out at 10mm, which needs a spherical front glass element to keep things under control with the incredible refraction needed with a 10mm slr lens. A flatter front will reflect and diffract at these angles of view.

If the op wants an insane full-frame wide-angle lens with heavy build, he should check the Sigma 12-24. It really is one of a kind.

[Hawg Hanner]

There are resources other than PBase.com to search for photographs using a particular lens. Flickr is another one of those resources. To see more examples of photographs taken with the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM go to:

http://flickr.com/search/?q=canonefs1022mmf3545usm&ct=6&ss=2&s=int

[Wilt]

The APS-C wideangles do not look different because they are really fisheyes, as a matter of fact they are not.

Indeed. For anyone calling the lens a 'fisheye', that is inappropriate used of the term. A Fisheye lens is, by design, one which turns ANY line which does not pass directly thru the center of the image circle and depicts it as a curve.

[wimg]

Hi Christopher,
10mm is a fisheye. The efs 10-22 is also partly a fish eye but it is framed/cropped inside the lens for crop cameras just past the fishy part and ground down just enough to give mostly the appearance of a normal lens. But it is in no way anything like a 24-70L or any other normal zoom lens. Ever notice how the crop UWA lenses look so completely different then all other lenses?
10 mm is not a fisheye unless it has a non-rectilinear mapping and is desgnated fisheye. The EF-S 10-22 is a rectilinear lens. Unfortunately, when you try to capture an angle of more than 90 degrees, objects will get deformed due to the projection use, i.e, stretching of objects, and bending of some lines if they cover more than 90 degrees in the AoV.
The widest you can get for FF is the 14mm L and that is all you will ever be able to get. And few people buy the 14mm because the 16-35 is a better deal.
Well, the Sigma 12-24 is a rectilinear wideangle zoom, which works on a FF cam, so 12 mm is the widest you can go with a rectilear lens, currently, which gives you an AoV of approximately 122 degrees.

Theoretically, you could get almost to a 180 degree view with such a lens. However the larger the AoV, and the higher the aperture, the more complex it is to design and build such a lens. Plus, the market demand won't be very high either, which is why Canon doesn't go further than 14 mm and F/2.8. The high price, IMO, is justified due to the rarity and relatively large aperture of this lens.

BTW, the projection used is one of the reasons of the large light fall-off towards the corners of such a lens. It is inherent to this type of design, and it gets worse with larger apertures.

A fisheye employs a completely different strategy, and fisheyes were designed originally for scientific purposes, to capture heaven plus the horizon for comparison, in a single shot. There are a number of projections possible, but they all favour relative shape size vs bending of lines. This is why people in the corners of a fisheye image don't look as bad as people in a corner of a rectilinear WA, and actually start looking good even, when you straighten the vertical lines (hemi-fisheye correction).

Of late, fisheyes have become much more popular, because they are excellent for use with certain sports (skate-boarding comes to mind), and for the creation of virtual tours, and extreme panos, i.e., for internet use.

I am sure this is one of the reasons why Tokina and Pentax have come out with the 10-17 fisheye zoom. It is a nice new market with potential, especially for the first-comers under the manufacturers.

Oh, as a comparison, a 160 degree rectilinear WA would have a focal length of about 7.6 mm, while a circular 180 degree fisheye has a focal length of about 8 mm, and one with a diagonal AoV of 180 degrees approximately 15 mm. The Tokina 10-17 has an estimated AoV of 194 degrees at 10 mm on FF with the lens hood removed (yes, it works on FF), but it really is designed for APS-C, and as such it is a 180 degree AoV over the diagonal, while the EF-S 10-22 at 10 mm has a AoV of about 108 degrees over the diagonal, an 82 degree difference.

Anyway, rambled enough, I guess :).

Kind regards, Wim

[Double Negative]

There's always the 8mm Sigma, if you don't mind round (or partially rounded) images...

Next up is 14/15mm. The former is rectilinear whereas the latter is a full frame fisheye.

From there you have the 16-35mm f/2.8L (FF) or the equivalent 10-22mm (1.6x).

The only "L" out of any of these is the 14mm and 16-35mm, neither of which are as wide as the 10-22mm is on crop cameras... So if you want wide, suck it up and get the 10-22mm. It really is a good lens, "L" or not.

[cosworth]

All lenses are fisheye. Period.

Every lens no matter how good has some distortion. You may not percieve it but it's there. My 17-40 does it, my 70-200 does it. I've been shooting ocean horizons for a while and they all do it and I've had to adjust accordingly.

Back on topic...

If you do not buy the 10-22 or a full frame camera you will unneccessarily wait for potentially forever. Photography i snot about waiting fro your Maker's system to have the piece of gear you want. Everything is photography is a compromise. Right now to get the shot YOU want, you need a 10-22 or a FF with 16-35/17-40 etc. With full frame you have 3rd party options like the 12-24.

Go spend your money.

[inthedeck]

Here's a link to a bunch of photos from the 10-22mm

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=32607

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=30282

Never owned one, but there seems to be some decent shots taken with it. Hope those help.

[RichardtheSane]

I had a 10-22mm fr a while. Loved the quality - it definitly rivalled my 17-40L at the time. Definitly not a soft lens at all! My only gripe was build quality - it wasn't bad but it didn't feel very solid in my hands. In fact I changed to the toke 12-24 based purely on build quality (Although I didn't get a drop in image quality either, which is nice)


Yeah, well, Canon also stated the original 18-55 EFS was a one off, and would not be designing any more...
Can you state your source for this? Considering how soon after the 18-55mm the 17-85 & 10-22 were brought out I seriously doubt canon actually said this.

[JaGWiRE]

I had a 10-22mm fr a while. Loved the quality - it definitly rivalled my 17-40L at the time. Definitly not a soft lens at all! My only gripe was build quality - it wasn't bad but it didn't feel very solid in my hands. In fact I changed to the toke 12-24 based purely on build quality (Although I didn't get a drop in image quality either, which is nice)



Can you state your source for this? Considering how soon after the 18-55mm the 17-85 & 10-22 were brought out I seriously doubt canon actually said this.
The tokina is built like a brick, no doubt. I shoot with a few guys, one owns the 10-20 like me, and the other owns the 12-24. It's a crazy lens, if the canon had a build like that it'd have to be labelled L, LOL.

[Dorman]

Firstly, Hawg, those are some stunning shots. Wow.

Secondly, I should stop opening these UWA threads, as a landscape photographer with a crop camera I'm at 17mm at my widest now...yikes... can I truly justify having both (cuz I can't bare to part with my 17-40)

[Madweasel]

All lenses are fisheye. Period.


Not true. Yes, all lenses distort the image, but a true fish-eye projects the image so that linear distances on the image are directly proportional to the angular distances in the actual scene. In other words, in a 180-degree circular image, a point 45 degrees off the lens axis will be half way between the centre of the image and its edge. All non-fish-eye lenses (rectilinear) project in a different way to this, and deviations from straight lines, as in your sea horizon examples, may be concave or convex (barrel or pincushion), but that doesn't make them fish-eye lenses.

[Woolburr]

I was looking through the galleries at Pbase, and most the images just looked a bit soft. I guess I just got bad examples. (I hate how that site randomly gives you images)

I just spent an hour looking at 10-22 images on Pbase...I didn't see too many that were soft...saw a few with compression issues...but that has nothing to do with the lens.

[I Simonius]

I really want something in this focal length with the 1.6x crop but Looking at the images from the 10-22 the lens is a tad soft. It would be nice to get a 2.8 L in this range.

Keep wishing? Or wait patiently?

Both;) :D :p :p :lol:

[Sharpstat]

Taken last Summer in Maui. I still miss this lens. I wish it would have worked with my 1DMKIIN



Canon 30D and 10-22 lens

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/3979/frontstreetinlahainawidvv1.jpg

[Denovo]

Get the 10-22mm. It's not soft.

And it has L glass even though it's not an "L" lens (Canon won't give it an L designation since it's an EF-S lens).

[Hawg Hanner]

And nor does it come with an L price.

[pup]

my tokina 12-24 is very very sharp

[JaGWiRE]

I find 10mm a hard focal length to work with at times. Getting everything exposed properly with simple raw adjustments sometimes poses to be hard, and the horizon is more then often mesed up. I think on a tripod levelled 10mm would produce a much easier to work with image (horizon wise and angle wise anyway.) You can't shoot your camera blind at 10mm very well from what I've learned (i.e. stick your hand out in the air and shoot.) That is just me, of course.

[cjm]

I had a 10-22mm fr a while. Loved the quality - it definitly rivalled my 17-40L at the time. Definitly not a soft lens at all! My only gripe was build quality - it wasn't bad but it didn't feel very solid in my hands. In fact I changed to the toke 12-24 based purely on build quality (Although I didn't get a drop in image quality either, which is nice)I had the Tokina lens and thought it was awesome also. The only think I didn't like about it was it had a wee bit more distortion wide then my EFs 10-22 seems to have.

I bought my 10-22 used but at one point I came very close to buying a tokina again. If I couldn't have the 10-22 lens, I for sure would buy the Tokina again.

And best of all about the Tokina, it has less problems with filters then the Canon 10-22 seems to have. Never really got the blackness in the corners with my tokina.

[embdude]

I had a 10-22mm fr a while. Loved the quality - it definitly rivalled my 17-40L at the time. Definitly not a soft lens at all! My only gripe was build quality - it wasn't bad but it didn't feel very solid in my hands. In fact I changed to the toke 12-24 based purely on build quality (Although I didn't get a drop in image quality either, which is nice)



Can you state your source for this? Considering how soon after the 18-55mm the 17-85 & 10-22 were brought out I seriously doubt canon actually said this.

It was written in shutterbugs pre-release review of the 300D, it was the cover storry at the time...

[angryhampster]

Taken last Summer in Maui. I still miss this lens. I wish it would have worked with my 1DMKIIN



Canon 30D and 10-22 lens

http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/3979/frontstreetinlahainawidvv1.jpg


Is that Lahaina? I loved that town when I was on Maui. I want to go back to Maui again so badly. Such a great place.

[circa]

right now Nikon is running Canon's show in terms of the fisheye. I know tons of action sports shooters that have ditched their Canon gear simply for a D2H + Nikon 10.5mm fisheye combo. Canon needs to smarten up and get a fisheye for one of their crop sensors, 1.3x specifically. Yes there is a Tokina fish for the Canon's but an actual Canon brand fisheye would be so much sweeter.

[Hawg Hanner]

right now Nikon is running Canon's show in terms of the fisheye. I know tons of action sports shooters that have ditched their Canon gear simply for a D2H + Nikon 10.5mm fisheye combo.

You've got be kidding...or seriously confused. No one ditches their professional cameras and legions of lenses just because the other big vendor has a wider fisheye lens offering...especially sports photographers. You're joking, right?

A fisheye lens is a novelty lens. Use it too much and you look like a moron. Use it in the right place and the right situation and you can look like a genius. But unless sports photographers can position themselves directly opposite the QB and behind the offensive line, a fisheye won't do a whole lot of good when photographing "action sports," or right in the point guard's face, or right under the batter's behind.

Have you seen how many Canon bodies and lenses are on the sidelines of professional and college sporting events? How many Nikons are there? Not many.

Get real.

[driverdave]

a fisheye won't do a whole lot of good when photographing "action sports," or right in the point guard's face, or right under the batter's behind.


i had to register just to respond to this.

he's talking skateboarding (or maybe bmx, snowboaring, etc...) and yes, i can see a pro "action sports" photag switching just for a better fisheye lens.

it's pretty obvious that no one uses a fisheye for stick and ball sports.

[Wilt]

'Switching brand' over one lens is absurd thing to do. A true professional photographer can have many cameras to meet special purposes, for example, to work in different formats. So the idea of having a Nikon body to use a Nikon fisheye, and additionally having a Canon body with a Canon IS telephoto for the same assignment would be the right way to do things, rather than reinvesting and suffering depreciation losses on all the stuff sold of in the brand change!

I have a Olympus film SLR system with a 24mm perpective control lens and I will pick this up for real architectural work, simply because I do not have a PC lens for my 20D (and I do not wish to invest $2700 in a FF dSLR and suffer greater $$$ depreciation when the fickle digital market turns its nose up on the 5D in favor of the 6D).