10-22mm EF-S learning curve

I'm also getting one basically for the challenge of ultra-wide. I read through a few articles online (including the Ken Rockwell one) and everywhere I go people say you have to get close, so we'll see how close I can get.

I also think keeping my shadow out of the pic might be a challenge but we'll see.

I think I will be investing in a GND kit once the weather clears. I have seen some amazing pics in this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=224448

I actually found there to be no learning curve with the 10-22. I adapted to it nearly instantly. After that, I almost found it harder to compose with longer lenses like the 17-55! Perhaps I've always been an UWA freak and didn't realise it.

Here are some of my 10-22 shots. A tip for any newbie owners - try marrying yours with a good CPL. It'll do wonders for alot of shots.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Nice pics. Interesting though, I've read NOT to use CPF on these lens's because they make the sky colors vary across the great range as the polarizing effect changes with angle.

USER876 wrote in post #7169919
Nice pics. Interesting though, I've read NOT to use CPF on these lens's because they make the sky colors vary across the great range as the polarizing effect changes with angle.

And it does. However, that doesn't mean you should never use a CPF on an UWA lens. To an extent, even without the filter, the sky can be uneven colored. It's just something you need to be aware of. Sometimes it will be distracting, while other times you can do a little work in photoshop to even it out.

I think the learning curve depends on how distorted/not distorted you want the pic to look. If you don't care or like the distortion, then there's not as much to using it. I kind of like it, myself.

lewdog wrote in post #7177590
I think the learning curve depends on how distorted/not distorted you want the pic to look. If you don't care or like the distortion, then there's not as much to using it. I kind of like it, myself.

Here's an example from my daily commute, with no distortion visible.
It really is a great lens!

Oh, the stress of my daily drive

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

i love my 10-22 on my 5dmk2

I find that composition is more important with this lens than any other I've used. It's so easy for a subject in the middle distance to be lost amongst the vastness. Using leading lines can really help.

In this image the two people on the dune would be totally insignificant if it weren't for the fact that every line leads your eye towards them.

Beautiful shot, Frank.

Thanks for the Ken Rockwell link.

UWA does take some getting used to composition wise. As mentioned in the website link, there is a big difference between the initial 'getting it all in' style shots to the 'creative style' which develops over time.

lefturn99 wrote in post #7166485
My biggest problem with this lens is keeping my shadow out of the picture.

Advice: get close.

Or your feet

Roy Webber wrote in post #7182121
Or your feet

Or anything else

Yes, shadows are the thing to watch for.

yokotas13 wrote in post #7181627
i love my 10-22 on my 5dmk2

How do you get the 10-22 to work on a 5D MK II? In your sig, it reads a moded 10-22. Can you explain?

google

JoYork wrote in post #7181852
Beautiful shot, Frank.

yes he did make the case with that one .

ed rader