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

Destractions wrote in post #10648774
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?

Honestly I don't see any actual distortion in any of your pics. And by actual distortion I mean Barrel or Pin-cushion which are the only two kinds of distortion.(you also get a mix of those sometimes...) But again by standing so close you get those stretchy "distortions" but they appear pretty rectilinear to me.

Which is also my experience with the 17-40mm so I don't know why the OP is complaining about the 17-40mm having distortion.

As for those windows... I think the photographer was just holding the camera at a slightly weird angle Which can do that... or he tried to fix it and wrecked it.

And besides you only notice actual barrel/pin-cushion distortion is when you shoot a building with well defined lines.

Destractions wrote in post #10648869
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?

Yes, I have the 17-40. It would have needed more tests. For a 16-22, considering it would probably only be used for still life, I prefer the range on the 17-40. I shoot mostly concerts and the larger range is important to me. Neither give you great corners but they're not all that important for my subject matter. If I want better corners for a still life and I want wide, I use a CZ 28. It suits my occasional foray into landscapes

Destractions wrote in post #10648989

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I took the shots and they are raw except for colour and sharpness. The window that is on the far right is curved, It's not even a straight line, and when compared to the window in front of the truck which looks straighter for sure, it is traveling in a completely different direction. There were no tricks, the truck looks great, but the background shows the obvious distortion you get when using an UWA. You simply need to look through the viewfinder and walk around to experience it in action. In a shot like the truck above, when you aren't compensating for it, it is exaggerated and even a bit eye crossing. Chasing an UWA that doesn't have that is going to be like a dog chasing his tail.

Oh sorry I thought you were referring to the photos in the link. Well yea there is no doubt that a wide angle lens will always have a little distortion. It is extremely hard to correct for field curvature. And that's where the distortion comes from.

Maybe one day we'll have sensors which are able to curve themselves to the proper field curvature depending on the focal length. Not only will we have basically no distortion to deal with but lenses would be a lot cheaper to manufacture. One can dream...

I actually don't mind it at all, lol. that is why the truck remains un edited for it. I always did like the fish eye effect for things like cars and landscapes. I think as photographers we are so much fusier and about things that the average person viewing the shot would never even consider. No one I have shown the shot of the truck too has ever noticed the massive distortion in the building.

Destractions wrote in post #10649173
I actually don't mind it at all, lol. that is why the truck remains un edited for it. I always did like the fish eye effect for things like cars and landscapes. I think as photographers we are so much fusier and about things that the average person viewing the shot would never even consider. No one I have shown the shot of the truck too has ever noticed the massive distortion in the building.

No kiddin... and besides its not the slight gain in sharpness or distortion that makes or breaks a photo. It's a very amateur thing to worry about gear so much. Most amateurs talk about their gear without ever really using it much.

(By the way I'm not in anyway suggesting I'm better than that. All I'm saying that this obsession is not constructive.)

mehran.mo wrote in post #10649272
No kiddin... and besides its not the slight gain in sharpness or distortion that makes or breaks a photo. It's a very amateur thing to worry about gear so much. Most amateurs talk about their gear without ever really using it much.

(By the way I'm not in anyway suggesting I'm better than that. All I'm saying that this obsession is not constructive.)

Agreed! Never before has that been more true than today, check out this UWA shot I took the other day....

Destractions wrote in post #10649328
Agreed! Never before has that been more true than today, check out this UWA shot I took the other day....

Using my Iphone 4

Optimizing your gear constantly can be a meta game that gets in the way of your actual goals in photography and a task that has returns that diminish quickly.


..

That iphone 4 camera is actually pretty impressive for it's size.

It is actually a lot wider than I was expecting. I'm not sure it's FL but it is about = 18mm on a crop. If anything the sensor seems to limit the lens a bit IMO.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Dude... Sweet merc. My grandfather had a very similar one in green.

Nice, It's a nice ride and not a bad picture for a phone, lol.

i think what you guys are forgetting is the main reason why people do this. not everybody sells all their crop gear off when they go FF. now for those that still keep a crop as backup, the 10-22 still mounts as an ultra wide. an added plus is that it now mounts to 5D/1D. the main reason i remember people doing this is the 1D series doesn't really have a good/affordable ultra wide option.

yes, you could just buy a 17-40. but what if you want to use your back up crop camera? it's just a normal wide angle lens there.

klr.b wrote in post #10649567
i think what you guys are forgetting is the main reason why people do this. not everybody sells all their crop gear off when they go FF. now for those that still keep a crop as backup, the 10-22 still mounts as an ultra wide. an added plus is that it now mounts to 5D/1D. the main reason i remember people doing this is the 1D series doesn't really have a good/affordable ultra wide option.

yes, you could just buy a 17-40. but what if you want to use your back up crop camera? it's just a normal wide angle lens there.

I probably would have bought the FF Tokina 11-16mm which is good for both, but I also wouldn't use a crop body as a back up for my FF if UWA shots were important and I was limited to 1 lens for the task, lol. Atleast it has been properly designed for both and has reportedly good IQ, and amazingly enough still costs less than the 10-22mm.

Destractions wrote in post #10649599
I probably would have bought the FF Tokina 11-16mm which is good for both, but I also wouldn't use a crop body as a back up for my FF if UWA shots were important and I was limited to 1 lens for the task, lol. Atleast it has been properly designed for both and has reportedly good IQ, and amazingly enough still costs less than the 10-22mm.

it's actually ironic that you say that because the tokina 11-16 was made for crop cameras. they just don't make a different mount like the EF-s mount like canon does. so all third party lenses made for today's canons have the EF mount. that's all the OP is really trying to do--put an EF mount on a lens intended for crop bodies. so you would essentially be doing, or paying for, what he's doing

klr.b wrote in post #10650270
it's actually ironic that you say that because the tokina 11-16 was made for crop cameras. they just don't make a different mount like the EF-s mount like canon does. so all third party lenses made for today's canons have the EF mount. that's all the OP is really trying to do--put an EF mount on a lens intended for crop bodies. so you would essentially be doing, or paying for, what he's doing

The same, minus the F/2.8, cheaper price tag and hassle and risk of removing and replacing baffles. I personally choose the 10-22mm for its zoom coverage as well as it's IQ, if I was going to limit myself to the FF Equivalent of 22mm it would be for more light like the Tokina has. Having that same narrow range as the Tokina but being limited to F/4.5 instead of 2.8? Or again the 17-40mm F/4 with double the range comes to mind. But whatever, we'll I guess we will see how it compares when the shots are posted.