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

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10647425
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)

This is true but the good landscape photographer knows that filters are not needed and its all about time of day or the golden hours and are willing to have their butts out of bed to catch the early light or wait until the end of the day to catch their shot before the sun sets. I have been set up on more than one occasion at 0 dark 30 on location sipping on coffee waiting for the light to be right.

I'd love to see this information showing the 10-22mm to be a sharper lens on a FF then the 17-40L, even some pics. This really seems like a "look what I can do" type mod more than I "I should do it" type.

Justin_Thyme wrote in post #10647702
This is true but the good landscape photographer knows that filters are not needed and its all about time of day or the golden hours and are willing to have their butts out of bed to catch the early light or wait until the end of the day to catch their shot before the sun sets. I have been set up on more than one occasion at 0 dark 30 on location sipping on coffee waiting for the light to be right.

ummm, what? I'm up at 0-dark-30 all the time, at least once a week in fact and shoot with filters almost every morning. Sunrise shoots are notorious for DR issues even w/o the sun in the actual picture, so I'm either using GNDs or forced to merge in post (HDRs or exposure blends). It's pretty common to need one or the other. IE 95% of my sunrise shots have one or the other used. the long lens shots are typically the exception to that rule because they capture such a small portion of the image.

Destractions wrote in post #10647757
I'd love to see this information showing the 10-22mm to be a sharper lens on a FF then the 17-40L, even some pics. This really seems like a "look what I can do" type mod more than I "I should do it" type.

yeah, I'm waiting to see it myself. Everyone seems to mention it in reviews w/o proving it...

here's a good review though:
http://the-digital-picture.com …-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

his comparisons are of a chart though, so they both show CA pretty bad (worst case scenario basically because of the chart) and the sharpness doesn't really change much:
http://the-digital-picture.com …&SampleComp=0&F​LI=0&API=3
distortion and flare are the 2 bigger areas where the 17-40 fail a bit, and neither can be seen in his chart tests....

Justin_Thyme wrote in post #10647702
This is true but the good landscape photographer knows that filters are not needed and its all about time of day or the golden hours and are willing to have their butts out of bed to catch the early light or wait until the end of the day to catch their shot before the sun sets. I have been set up on more than one occasion at 0 dark 30 on location sipping on coffee waiting for the light to be right.

All the good landscapers I've read about use filters, so I'm not sure what you are talking about here ...

This has one application I think that is good. You have a crop camera as well as a FF cam. You use both a lot. So you have an UWA on both Crop and FF. The 17-40mm is cheaper maybe, but on the used market you can find the 10-22mm cheaper. But it essentially becomes a UWA and that's it, on FF. On crop the 22mm is back into normal territory, and so is 40mm on FF.

It's been done quite a bit before (10-22mm on FF) and there are samples there. I contemplated doing it, since I bought my sharp copy for so cheap, but decided against it.

http://www.flickr.com …/72157604422834​954/page2/

Instructions and sample shots. Shots are too small to judge edge/corner sharpness IMO.

http://www.dgrin.com/s​howthread.php?t=134504

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10647835
here's a good review though:
http://the-digital-picture.com …-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

A good review of what? It doesn't say anything about using it on a FF. Your mistake here, IMO, is in assuming the 10-22mm is going to retain all of it's qualities @ 16mm+ on a FF. This isn't like mounting an EF on an EFS body where the lens is closer and you get a cropped image. Obviously it is the opposite where you pull the lens further away, utililizing outer edges of the glass not meant to be used, further problems will be introduced with the natural issues that UWA's have inherent to their design.

Sure, it'll work but there is a reason that no one has bothered to take the time to really test this out. And if the only real benefits are that it is smaller/lighter than I wonder why you would go FF to begin with.

The 17-40mm is an L lens in both build and IQ, it comes with a hood and is cheaper than the 10-22mm. I certainly wouldn't risk voiding my warranty and damaging my camera and or lens even if I did think that there would be less CA and distortion (both easily fixable in PP) with the 10-22mm

Why don't you take some shots @ 16mm and post them? Show us how good it actually looks then.

Destractions wrote in post #10647950
Sure, it'll work but there is a reason that no one has bothered to take the time to really test this out. And if the only real benefits are that it is smaller/lighter than I wonder why you would go FF to begin with.

the benefit could be finding a UWA for FF that offers less distortion. Every time I mention distortion in a UWA thread everyone parades through with the crappy "fix it in post" solution. I've owned three 17-40s, both versions of the 16-35, two 12-24mms for canon, one for nikon, the 20-35 and the 14-24mm all on FF. On crop I've tried the 11-16mm and have now moved to the 10-22 because it's got...... less distortion!!!!

you know what I've learning in all this? There are LOTS of people who fLock to certain canon options when buying lenses. Most won't consider other options and will defend their purchases w/o having tried or read about anything else. I'm not that guy. I read about things and decide for myself if it's worth checking out IRL then do do. Everyone says the 12-24mm is crap around here, or MOST everyone, but the funny thing is it's the least distorted UWA on any FF system available. Corners be damned. I'm hoping the 10-22 is another hidden gem, and I'm hoping it looks great on FF. It might not, but what harm does trying it cause.

the hood for the 17-40 is a joke. it's the same hood for the 10-22 actually. It's good for nothing really, and besides I'm using panel filters most of the time with a UWA anyway. But with these lenses a bobbed 24-105 hood works MUCH better anyway. The build I'll give you, but it weighs more if you're concerned about that. I don't think you're voiding any warranties with this change, if you try you'll see why I say that.

as for CA and distortion being easily fixed, sure but it's another step. You also loose width when you fix distortion. Yes it's in the corners anyway, but a loss is a loss...

I will, as soon as I have my 5Dii out of the shop.

Look, this thread isn't going to win over any of you FF people until it's got samples, I know that. The point of this thread is because it took me a few hours of searching to find phone numbers, part numbers etc to do this myself and I enjoy doing things the wrong way. The prospect of having a 12-22mm made by canon with nice corners and filters is certainly appealing to me. We'll see how it pans out. This:

jdang307 wrote in post #10647938
Instructions and sample shots. Shots are too small to judge edge/corner sharpness IMO.

http://www.dgrin.com/s​howthread.php?t=134504

is quite promising though.

So the guy used a knife to cut the baffle apart instead of just simply removing the baffle? It just pops out easily, but he cut it up and destroyed it, lmao. Okay, obviously this is the best guy to go for advice...

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10648051
the benefit could be finding a UWA for FF that offers less distortion.

I'm not sure how using more of the image then intended (40%?) of the lens isn't going to increase CA and distortion.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10648051
you know what I've learning in all this? There are LOTS of people who fLock to certain canon options when buying lenses. Most won't consider other options and will defend their purchases w/o having tried or read about anything else.

Obviously not directed at me, though you did link me to a review for a lens I already own and use regularly... Have you seen my sig at all?

VVVVVVVVVVVV

Destractions wrote in post #10648124
So the guy used a knife to cut the baffle apart instead of just simply removing the baffle? It just pops out easily, but he cut it up and destroyed it, lmao. Okay, obviously this is the best guy to go for advice...

which is why I made the tread. Lots of different posts about this in various places. NOT ONE has all of the above:

• sample images on FF (coming soon!)
  
• which part you need
  
• how to install it
  
• canon's phone number
  

from what I know about distortion, if it curves, it curves in the middle and sides. So yes the sides are a question right now, but from the samples I've already seen on 1.3 and FF it's not bad, and no worse than the 17-40mm... As for CA, typically CA is a problem more in corners than the center, but we'll see where that falls once my 5Dii comes back.

Obviously not directed at me, though you did link me to a review for a lens I already own and use regularly... Have you seen my sig at all?

maybe if it wasn't bright green it'd be easier to read. I linked you to the review because guess what, owning a lens does NOT mean you've read everything there is to know about it online.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10648260
maybe if it wasn't bright green it'd be easier to read. I linked you to the review because guess what, owning a lens does NOT mean you've read everything there is to know about it online.

Here's everything I need to know about the 10-22mm

Destractions wrote in post #10648333
I think you are sadly mistaken thinking this is going to even compare.

have you ever shot canon's offerings on FF?

Have I ever mounted a 10-22mm on a FF? Nope. Regardless I can;t see how it could be mounted on a FF and not increase its negative attributes by a considerable amount, especially when compared to a proper FF UWA. And I think the fact that this has been known about the lens since it came out more than 5 years ago and the only supporting documents are from some guy that mutilated the lens to make it happen when he clearly didn't need to and then got no interest whatsoever after he posted pics says something, but does anyone really think it'll look better? Seriously?..


So you think the distortion in the above pic is perfectly acceptable when compared to the 17-40mms' even worse distortion? Those 2 windows aren't even heading in the same direction and as you spread the image it will only be worse. One heads right and the other heads left like a freeway off ramp. What is that 2% better than the 3 different 17-40mm you have made your way through? It's not like it is usable without PP either way, right?

To me it is like saying " KFC's french fries have less grease than Burger Kings, that's why I switched!" uwa = a ton of distortion, even in the best of lenses. This is why we have to frame our images for the least revealing results and use whatever PP necessary to correct it. It sound like you are blowing a load of cash re-buying lens after lens to figure this out IMO

The way most wide angle lenses are designed is basically like a reverse telephoto, Zeiss calls this design Distagon. So what you are doing when you "zoom" the wide angle lens is that you are just making that same image bigger. This is why the image gets bigger as you zoom and finally fills the frame. Also why there is less vignetting towards the far end.

With that said, while this is a cool gimmick and it might seem like it works well from the very little evidence we've seen... Truth is that the 17-40mm is still a much better option. Also it is only lighter by less than 100g, barely noticeable to most shooters. And also one thing that you are completely ignoring when referring to distortion is that: on a full frame 17mm you are standing much closer to your subject as you are with 17mm on a 1.6x crop. And what you perceive as distortion has nothing to do with focal length, it is dependent on the distance from the subject.

Edit: Also please don't feel offended. Nobody is dissing your discovery. We all think it's very cool and it's good to know there are options. We are just thinking about the real world.

mehran.mo wrote in post #10648689
on a full frame 17mm you are standing much closer to your subject as you are with 17mm on a 1.6x crop. And what you perceive as distortion has nothing to do with focal length, it is dependent on the distance from the subject.

Excellent point. I was 24cm away from the flower for that shot and standing about a foot off the bumper in the shot of the blue truck. How would that be affected? Also, what about the right side of the frame where it looks like the building is being sucked into the tornado from an internet based version of the wizard of oz?

I wish I had kept the sample pics I did when I popped the baffle on my 10-22 and tried it on my 5D. I did not have the 17-40 at the time but, looking back, my gut feeling is that the 10-22 is sharper at 17mm on a FF than the my 17-40 is. It also seemed to have better contrast and sharpness. My memory could be wrong. The corners sucked but they also do on the 17-40.

Ideally, a comparison of both would be ideal.

So you still have the 17-40 then? If you could have swapped the baffle and made it work would you have kept it for it's better IQ?