Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

At last I got mine.

Abes of Maine were the only company that would deliver to my hotel - their prices are good and their service is exceptional.
I got the hood as well - it's a real bulky one.

I'm on a business trip in Pittsburgh and today and it was our first day out with this lens - we had it attached to my wife's 350D with the 17-55 on my 30D.

My wife and I tour a lot, but have very few pics with both of us - that just changed - I held the camera at arms length and got a few good shots of us together.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Another one.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

how can I tell if my 10-22 is soft? It sure feels like it is. What aperture shoul I use at 10mm, etc. This whole depth of field concept is a bit confuing to me. But my pics just aren't tack sharp.

Newbie1981 wrote in post #6034887
how can I tell if my 10-22 is soft? It sure feels like it is. What aperture shoul I use at 10mm, etc. This whole depth of field concept is a bit confuing to me. But my pics just aren't tack sharp.

Well I find my lens to be sharpest at f/8 to f/11 or so. But really you can shoot at f/5 and still get sufficient dof for most things but it won't be as sharp as it would shooting at f/8.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6035514

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Man, is that nice. That is just screaming to go black and white.

LordAlex wrote in post #6033056
Until now I had been playing a bit with my brother's lens, mine came in on Thursday. The weather has been terrible and today it was rough shooting. Drizzly, blinding, white, overcast sky...Had to get out and take a stab though. Not really archive material but what the heck.

Cheers

First 3 are nice. A lot of PP potential. The last one has the best sky, but is a bit more boring.

I like how you utilized the close focus of the lens. OK, so I'll get this one then.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #6036129
First 3 are nice. A lot of PP potential. The last one has the best sky, but is a bit more boring.

I like how you utilized the close focus of the lens. OK, so I'll get this one then.

Thanks man..ya the sky was a real pain yesterday and it's the same today arrhhh!! That last shot was my first, rather lame attempt at blending a couple of exposures

Cheers

corosario wrote in post #5657739
Used my 10-22 for some cycling shots a few weeks ago with my 30D. Not the sharpest, but I like them anyways.

@10mm

@11mm

@17mm

Nice work, and I must try some uses with mine other than just real estate stuff...

boucha wrote in post #6034933
Well I find my lens to be sharpest at f/8 to f/11 or so. But really you can shoot at f/5 and still get sufficient dof for most things but it won't be as sharp as it would shooting at f/8.

If shooting buildings from far away at 10 mm (for instance a skyline) should I see a lot of detail at 100% crop or not so much?

I ask because the pics look sharp unitl i view the full 100% pic. WHere the detail just does not look sharp at all.

Newbie1981 wrote in post #6037416
If shooting buildings from far away at 10 mm (for instance a skyline) should I see a lot of detail at 100% crop or not so much?

I ask because the pics look sharp unitl i view the full 100% pic. WHere the detail just does not look sharp at all.

I think this is common with wide-angle lenses, because you are looking at a very small image of familiar things, so they seem to have less detail than you'd like, but the fact is you've effectively blown it up very large when you're at 100%. The best way to demonstrate the effect is to print up your image - it'll probably look much better than you expect.

Newbie1981 wrote in post #6037416
If shooting buildings from far away at 10 mm (for instance a skyline) should I see a lot of detail at 100% crop or not so much?

I ask because the pics look sharp unitl i view the full 100% pic. WHere the detail just does not look sharp at all.

Not so much is about right. Lets say your full image height is 2336 pixels and a particular building detail is 1/10 of that height. If you then zoom it to 100%, you are now looking at 233 pixels in the same space that was occupied 2336 pixels, it will look soft. Now some lenses do resolve to a greater number of lines per mm but the effect is still there. Even a 1080p, 60 inch, high-def TV doesn't look so great if you are watching it from 4 inches away. Try to avoid pixel peeping at objects that are fairly small in your original image. Now if an object that takes up half the frame from 12 inches away looks soft then there might be a problem.

If you have access to a nice wide screen monitor, set the resolution to 3500w x 2300h and see what a 20 inch print would look like. I bet you'll like it!

Cheers

LordAlex wrote in post #6037090
Thanks man..ya the sky was a real pain yesterday and it's the same today arrhhh!! That last shot was my first, rather lame attempt at blending a couple of exposures

Cheers

Ah I see, did you use high-speed bracketing and combine it in Photoshop with the combine to HDR function? etc. etc.

Sorry, saw you have a 20D, this technique works better with a 40D and its 6 fps. Much harder with a 20D I think.

Canon EOS 40D Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
1/100s f/8.0 at 10.0mm iso100 - B+W Kaesemann MRC Circular Polarizer