Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Digital Cameras 
Thread started 07 Nov 2004 (Sunday) 23:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

A few 10-22 Snaps

 
djtowle
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Apr 2003
Location: California
     
Nov 07, 2004 23:23 |  #1

http://homepage.mac.co​m/djtowle/PhotoAlbum97​.html (external link)

FWIW Took a few pics with my new 10-22 today. Tthere's one indoor with flash, outdoor with/without fill flash, And a few shot with the sun low on the horizon and compared to the 24mm f1.4 all most unscientific. But I can tell you that the 24mm f1.4 flares BADLY and looses contrast when compared to the new 10-22. Although there are not perfect A-B shots here, trust me the difference is VERY apparent just in the viewfinder at all angles (from 90deg and sun out of frame, through straight into sun) So far (2 days <g>;) I think I like this lens. Note: I think the front filter threads are plastic, be carefull not to cross-thread. Also note, standard thickness filters Vignette badly, even crop the corners. I also found that even a multicoated slim UV/Skylight (B+W $$$ filters) adds 15-30% to the flare problem on both lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidwegs
Member
Avatar
224 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Denver, CO
     
Nov 08, 2004 00:02 |  #2

Wow, that sells me.

What do you think of its abilities as far as speed of focus? I love the 16-35/L as it gets there quick. Is this comparable in any way?

TIA :)


In the persuit of total contentment, Canon does not help :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pcasciola
POTN SHOPKEEPER
Avatar
3,130 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Millstone Township, NJ
     
Nov 08, 2004 07:21 |  #3

Nice shots!!! That's more what I was hoping I'd see from the 10-22. Those are about the best shots I've seen so far. I wonder if ultra wide lenses are less prone to lens flaring in general, because the difference from the 24mm L is very apparent.


Philip Casciola
Pro Camera Gear (external link) - POTN Shop (external link)
Canon 7D, EF 50/1.8, EF 85/1.8, EF 300/4L IS, EF-S 18-55, Tamron 28-75/2.8, EF 70-200/2.8L IS
Sigma 1.4x & 2x, Tamron 1.4x, Gitzo 2220 Explorer, 322RC2 grip

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roanjohn
Goldmember
Avatar
3,805 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
     
Nov 08, 2004 12:11 |  #4

..........any comment about the build??

Ro1




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
djtowle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Apr 2003
Location: California
     
Nov 08, 2004 14:01 |  #5

Auto Focus speed is excellent on 20D even in low light indoors. Right in there with 17-35 2.8L and 24mm f1.4.

Overall Build, It's a bit smaller and lighter then my 17-35f2.8, Overall Quality is good. It feels a little light to those used to L glass, It's just a little longer then the 24 & 35 1.4s but probably 50% lighter. It reminds me overall of the 28-135 IS lens however with internal focus and zoom I have far more confidence in the durability of the new 10-22. For comparison it seems better built then the 50 f1.4 (why Canon designed that lens with external focusing I don't know) but a little lighter duty then the 85 f1.8. All in All upper-prosumer feel to it.

Don't know if ultra wides flare less, but I am thinking of returning the 24mm which has been flare prone, a bit fuzzy in the corners, and doing some weird glowing halo kind of things in some photos, for a 35mm 1.4 which is supposed to be very excellent.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Olegis
Goldmember
Avatar
2,073 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Apr 2004
Location: Israel
     
Nov 08, 2004 14:23 |  #6

This sure looks like a sharp lens ! And no signs of CA - excellent ! I wish I could use this lens with my 10D ...


Best wishes,
Oleg.

www.Olegis.com (external link)
My equipment list
'I take orders from no one except the photographers' – Harry S Truman

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
phili1
Senior Member
891 posts
Joined Oct 2003
Location: Paramus N.J.
     
Nov 08, 2004 16:38 |  #7

Your lens performed a heck of allot sharper then the one I had. But at 10mm it favors the right side just like mine. good luck with it.


MKII N-Canon 20D - Tamron 90MM F2.8 Macro -
Tamron 17-35 F 2.8-4 - Canon 70-200 F4 L
Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 IS L - Kenko Pro 300 Ext 2 X - 420 EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timmyquest
Goldmember
4,172 posts
Joined Dec 2003
Location: Outside of Chicago
     
Nov 08, 2004 16:46 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

Looks fantastic!

i'll never understand why they wouldnt make it a regular EF mount...then again if i still owned my 300D i doubt i'd be bringing that up :lol:


Capturing life a fraction of a second at a time

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pcasciola
POTN SHOPKEEPER
Avatar
3,130 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Millstone Township, NJ
     
Nov 08, 2004 17:43 |  #9

Regarding the reduction in lens flare, I just came across this while reading up on the two new EF-S lenses at EOS magazine online:

EOS Magazine wrote:
By optimising lens coatings, Canon's engineers have been effective in suppressing flare and ghosting, which are more prone to occur with digital cameras due to reflection off the image sensor. Coatings reduce reflections off the lens surfaces to deliver crisp, undistorted digital images with natural colour balance.

Here's the article (external link)


Philip Casciola
Pro Camera Gear (external link) - POTN Shop (external link)
Canon 7D, EF 50/1.8, EF 85/1.8, EF 300/4L IS, EF-S 18-55, Tamron 28-75/2.8, EF 70-200/2.8L IS
Sigma 1.4x & 2x, Tamron 1.4x, Gitzo 2220 Explorer, 322RC2 grip

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
djtowle
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
116 posts
Joined Apr 2003
Location: California
     
Nov 08, 2004 17:53 |  #10

Lens Flare

Thanks for the link,That seems to explain my experience; wouldn't have believed the difference unless I saw it. Time for a 24mm f1.4 Mk II, Canon...? <g>




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
roanjohn
Goldmember
Avatar
3,805 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2003
Location: New York, NY
     
Nov 08, 2004 18:26 |  #11

djtowle wrote:
It reminds me overall of the 28-135 IS lens however with internal focus and zoom I have far more confidence in the durability of the new 10-22.

YIKES!!! I've seen that lens in person. It just feels plasticy!!!

Ro1




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

2,423 views & 0 likes for this thread, 7 members have posted to it.
A few 10-22 Snaps
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2565 guests, 94 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.