Canon 10-22 EF-S to EF mount conversion:

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=IDfyu_fuOf4

Haven't gotten it onto a FF camera yet, but that will come soon ish. I just wanted to show everyone just how easy it is to do the conversion. Rumor has it the 10-22 works from ~12-22 on 1.3 and ~15-22 on FF. I'll be able to answer that for sure later this week I hope.

All you do to get the rear baffle is call canon parts (1-866-481-2569) and ask for a 28-75mm rear baffle. I'll add the part number later, but that's all I knew when I called. It was ~$11 shipped. and came the next day (ups ground from NJ to RI is always that quick).

That's pretty neat. But to be honest I only see this making sense if you already have one of those lenses and decide to go to full frame otherwise the 17-40mm is about the same price and much better option.

Efs on full frame=vignetting by design. and posibly even on a 1.3 crop.

mehran.mo wrote in post #10646727
That's pretty neat. But to be honest I only see this making sense if you already have one of those lenses

don't say lenses. This is specifically the 10-22mm. Most of the other EF-S lenses won't cover the sensor even if you DO convert them. This is specifically about this ONE lens.

yes they're the same price and yes it makes most sense if you have the 10-22 and shoot it on crop. BUT. The 17-40 has flare and distortion issues. The 10-22 has less issues. They're similarly priced and the 10-22 is MUCH smaller/lighter. So in theory, if the 10-22 works on FF at 17-22, you lose some range, the build and the sealing, but you get a lens with better optical performance (from what I've seen/read). Also, from what I've read, you get a WIDER lens... If this works at 15mm then it's a nice wide option for FF shooters. If it's 16 it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the 16-35mm. If it's only 17, then you're giving up a lot and it needs to be a lot better optically. Once I get my 5Dii back I'll be able to see for sure.

trade offs to be sure, but the optical design on the 10-22 is quite good.

Justin_Thyme wrote in post #10646744
Efs on full frame=vignetting by design. and posibly even on a 1.3 crop.

usually yes, but NOT with the 10-22mm. This has been well documented with the tokina 11-16mm. It works at 14~15 with some vignetting and at 16mm there is ZERO vignetting on FF, it's just got slightly soft corners.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10646749
don't say lenses. This is specifically the 10-22mm. Most of the other EF-S lenses won't cover the sensor even if you DO convert them. This is specifically about this ONE lens.

By those lenses I was referring to other crop lenses that can be mounted on full frame and still "work" i.e: Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

Also people who get the 16-35mm don't get it because it's 16 instead of 17 but because it's f2.8. Anyway what I'm saying is that while this is a neat discovery there is really no point in buying this lens for your full frame camera.

Anyway I would really like to see some samples on full-frame.

Does autofocus work?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10646756
usually yes, but NOT with the 10-22mm. This has been well documented with the tokina 11-16mm. It works at 14~15 with some vignetting and at 16mm there is ZERO vignetting on FF, it's just got slightly soft corners.

Sounds a bit disappointing to me. Kind of makes it a pointless venture to turn a 10-22 into a 16-22 to get soft corners on FF. Strictly my opinion of course. Kind of pointless to pay the premium for full frame and then convert inferior optics to work with it, Kind of like buying a Bugatti then dropping a yugo engine in it...well maybe a little extreme but same principle.

I don't really see how there would be no vignetting since at 17mm there is like a 2 stop vignetting on a crop sensor already:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&CameraComp=0&F​LI=3&API=1

I can only imagine that on full frame it would be 1 or 2 stops more.

If I switched to ff I'd sell the 10-22 for sure, it's a deadly sharp lens but I'm not gonna monster garage it to mAke it work. The entire reason to go ff is for iq and the 10-22 can't compete with the 17-40 on a ff anymore than a 17-40 competes with the 17-55 on a crop. You are using edges of the glass not meant for consumption.

tun wrote in post #10647364
Does autofocus work?

yes

mehran.mo wrote in post #10647328
By those lenses I was referring to other crop lenses that can be mounted on full frame and still "work" i.e: Tokina 11-16mm f2.8.

ah, that makes more sense.

2.8 is nice, but when I tried the copy I tried (both versions) I did it for width and hoping for better performance in the corners stopped down. Also less distortion and flare. The new version gives you that, but at a wicked cost. it's still not perfect by any means though...

all the big named landscape guys I follow shoot 5Diis or 1DsIIIs w/ the 16-35mm II. The only thing 2.8 brings to the table for them is more light in the viewfinder. They're using it because it's the best optics in a UWA for canon right now. Of course some of these guys use nikon's 14-24mm with an adapter instead.

yeah, should have some later this week. Unfortunately I don't have a FF UWA to compare too though, but I can at least show WHERE you can use it to and corner performance...

Justin_Thyme wrote in post #10647376
Sounds a bit disappointing to me. Kind of makes it a pointless venture to turn a 10-22 into a 16-22 to get soft corners on FF. Strictly my opinion of course. Kind of pointless to pay the premium for full frame and then convert inferior optics to work with it, Kind of like buying a Bugatti then dropping a yugo engine in it...well maybe a little extreme but same principle.

you're giving the 16-35 and 17-40 too much credit and taking too much away from the 10-22. Canon's UWAs that cover FF aren't the most amazing performers out there. They are good, but not great (Nikon's 14-24mm is amazing). The 10-22 is at least as good if not better than the 17-40mm optically. The hope is to get it's wide end range wise (so no corner issues at 17mm, hopefully 16mm) w/o the distortion or flare.

would love to know if it works with the 17-55IS

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10647425
you're giving the 16-35 and 17-40 too much credit and taking too much away from the 10-22. Canon's UWAs that cover FF aren't the most amazing performers out there. They are good, but not great (Nikon's 14-24mm is amazing). The 10-22 is at least as good if not better than the 17-40mm optically. The hope is to get it's wide end range wise (so no corner issues at 17mm, hopefully 16mm) w/o the distortion or flare.

No credit given to either for this application. If shooting FF and expected spectacular results I would be using two different primes, the 14L and the 24L and let my feet do the zooming, only a few steps at these narrow differences. And yes I agree on the Nikor glass. This is one of their lenses that truly shines and I have often contemplated picking one up and installing an adaptor for Canon use, not worth switching over to the dark side for me.

That's why he's using the other baffle. You don't even need that though,just remove the baffle and stay above 12mm, you can even put something in the way so it won't go under 12 like a rounded pei e of coat hanger in there. The real question is why are we modifying the lens when the 17-40L is a cheaper lens to begin with?

Robf wrote in post #10647530
would love to know if it works with the 17-55IS

it does not.

Justin_Thyme wrote in post #10647577
If shooting FF and expected spectacular results I would be using two different primes, the 14L and the 24L and let my feet do the zooming, only a few steps at these narrow differences.

except you can't use filters on the 14mm. Makes it very tough for landscapers, nevermind the cost and weight of those 2 lenses added up....

(and yes I'm sure my filter trick for the 12-24 and 14-24mm on FF would work for a 14mm prime as well)