(photo request) 10-22 EF-S on a 5DC/5D2

I've read you can simply remove the plastic EF-S baffle and mount a 10-22 on a full frame body as long as you stay above 12mm. Has anyone tried it? How does it perform compared to a 17-40? Please show us some samples!

POTN's Search is your friend...

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=14568835&p​ostcount=1

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14570427&po​stcount=11

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=14429546&po​stcount=25

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=13934509&po​stcount=15

Wilt, that first link is for a 1DIIn, not a 1Ds.

Thanks Wilt, what did you use fir your search criteria? I tried "10-22 5d". Your search-Fu is stronger than mine!

I'm curious at comparable focal lengths how the 10-22 compares optically to the 17-40. I will have both a 60d and 5D2 and would love to use the 10-22 on both cameras if possible instead of buying a 17-40 that I would really only use on the 5d

I've got a 5d and 7d and have the 10-22 and 17-40. IQ is very close between them, I can't detect an advantage of one over the other. 10-22 is wider and that is obvious.

Stealther wrote in post #14581146
Thanks Wilt, what did you use fir your search criteria? I tried "10-22 5d". Your search-Fu is stronger than mine!

I'm curious at comparable focal lengths how the 10-22 compares optically to the 17-40. I will have both a 60d and 5D2 and would love to use the 10-22 on both cameras if possible instead of buying a 17-40 that I would really only use on the 5d

My search was on '10-22' and 'FF'

Using the 10-22 on both APS-C and FF is a bit like using a Canon lens on a Hasselblad...it was not intended to be so.

Wilt wrote in post #14581255
My search was on '10-22' and 'FF'

Using the 10-22 on both APS-C and FF is a bit like using a Canon lens on a Hasselblad...it was not intended to be so.

Nikon glass wasn't meant to be used on Canon either, but the results can be fabulous.
Rules are meant to be broken.

1Tanker wrote in post #14581313
Nikon glass wasn't meant to be used on Canon either, but the results can be fabulous.
Rules are meant to be broken.

At least Nikon glass was designed to fill the 24x36mm frame properly! Unlike Canon EF glass trying to fill 42x55mm Hassy digital frame.

Well, if you want to full up your frame with the dregs of an image circle intended to only fill a 40% smaller frame, knock yourself out! False economy does lead to questionable decisions, I guess. Me, I'd rather get a suitable image circle.

If it works, it works. I haven't seen anyone say it looks horrible at comparable focal lengths against the 17-40. Wilt, I appreciate the help but can't help notice the barbs in your replys, is there a problem with looking for value? Or do you have personal experience with that setup and found it to be bad? My thinking is that I bought a UWA lens to shoot wide, if the lens works from 17-22, I lose out on the long side but I've spent exactly zero for it.

Stealther wrote in post #14581514
If it works, it works. I haven't seen anyone say it looks horrible at comparable focal lengths against the 17-40. Wilt, I appreciate the help but can't help notice the barbs in your replys, is there a problem with looking for value? Or do you have personal experience with that setup and found it to be bad? My thinking is that I bought a UWA lens to shoot wide, if the lens works from 17-22, I lose out on the long side but I've spent exactly zero for it.

I don't mind 'value'...which is why I own Tokina and Tamron lenses, not just Canon.
The problem I have is simply that APS-C is truly a different format from FF. So while no person in his/her right mind thinks of using 135 format lenses on Medium Format, we are stuck with folks trying to use APS-C lenses on FF dSLRs --equally absurd as Canon lenses on a Hasselblad -- simply because the lens mount is EF-S similar to EF, but nothing else makes their use suitable!

What do you think of folks trying to use their old Canon AE-1 TTL flash units mounted on the hotshoe of a Canon dSLR ETTL camera? Similarly absurd concept. My prior comment was an effort to bring levity to a laughable usage.

Wilt, I'm honestly not being argumentative, but all you have told me is that it's and EF-S lens, you shouldn't use it on a EF body and indirectly saying I'm being absurd for doing so. You haven't told me that the images that it will produce are drastically inferior image, only that you have a fundamental opposition for using something in a manner the manufacturer did not intend. Do you have anything to lend to my original question other than find new ways to indirectly insult?

Stealther wrote in post #14581553
Wilt, I'm honestly not being argumentative, but all you have told me is that it's and EF-S lens, you shouldn't use it on a EF body and indirectly saying I'm being absurd for doing so. You haven't told me that the images that it will produce are drastically inferior image, only that you have a fundamental opposition for using something in a manner the manufacturer did not intend. Do you have anything to lend to my original question other than find new ways to indirectly insult?

It does not fill the frame of the 24x36mm camera in the same manner in which a proper EF lens of the same FL would fill the frame. The EF-S lens image circle might 'just fill' the frame at the very edges of the image circle, while the EF lens of same FL would cover the frame sufficiently to allow the very edges (where IQ does fall off) to be discarded outside the 24x36mm frame area.

'Just getting by' is what you are doing, giving up things in an effort to save money. If you accept big compromises to save a buck, then buy the inferior filters for your lenses, too. Where do you draw the line...buying sub-$100 tripods?

Wilt, I understand what you're saying and it is OBVIOUSLY a stop-gap. Everyone is at different places in their lives and have different priorities, who are you to hold your standard over others? You seem like you have a lot to contribute in this area but your knowledge is overwhelmed by your sarcasm and complete lack of tact. Please don't bother with replying to my threads as it is clear that it is a waste of both or our time.

Stealther wrote in post #14581619
Wilt, I understand what you're saying and it is OBVIOUSLY a stop-gap. Everyone is at different places in their lives and have different priorities, who are you to hold your standard over others? You seem like you have a lot to contribute in this area but your knowledge is overwhelmed by your sarcasm and complete lack of tact. Please don't bother with replying to my threads as it is clear that it is a waste of both or our time.

I am sorry you viewed my comments as sarcasm! I meant only to raise the question of when do we cross the threshhold of compromising ourselves, in an effort at economy? ...the floppy sub $100 tripod, the flare causing filters, the electrical-contactless extension tube? There are tons of opportunities to achieve economy, but at what cost?

Does it not make you wonder why so few have ever posted example shots for what you ask, in spite of the fact that the lens has been around for 7-8 years or more?

Remember, I am the guy who gave those few links to examples per your request! Others may have expressed opinions, but not backed by examples.

<leaving thread>

hahaha do what you have to do! id say get a quality lens with out the risk of dinging a mirror or possible dust and dirt geting inside the 10-22