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

jdang307 wrote in post #10647938
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/
4

at citing sam's post

Ben, can't wait to see results

I never understood why there is so much resistance to using a 10-22 on a FF camera. It is great for me as I have an UWA for 1.6 1.3 and FF. That is something the 16-35 or 17-40 just cannot do.

It works plenty fine for my uses. Been using FF + 10-22 for three wedding seasons now. It's great.

^ awesome shots Lloyd, that ought to shut up some of these nay sayers that have obviously never tried it, or even a 17-40 on FF....

Destractions wrote in post #10648447
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.

So you think the distortion in the above pic is perfectly acceptable when compared to the 17-40mms' even worse distortion?

first off, I was asking if you'd used a 17-40L on a FF camera. It's pretty obvious you have NOT. it's got a fair amount of distortion to it. If you care about distortion at all, it's an issue and a PITA to fix each time. Second, your truck shot, that distortion has NOTHING to do with the lens. That's perspective distortion. It's there because you pointed the lens down. From what I've already seen having shot with the 10-22 for a week and having shot with 17-40s for a while, the 10-22 has less distortion in it's optics right away.

mehran.mo wrote in post #10648884
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.

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

the 17-40 has distortion. Also, I shoot architecture (paid mind you) and it's a PITA dealing with fixing straight lines that you shot straight in camera in post...

as for the amateur comment because I try gear? I haven't added any money to my kit in the last 3 years. I constantly buy used and resell things to make money. If anyone offers me money for a lens, I sell it or trade it and move on. It's fun on the side, it supports my nicer gear, and it makes me money and keeps me trying new things. Most people don't understand it, that's fine, but I also make money shooting with my gear as well. Thanks for the assumptions though.

Destractions wrote in post #10648989
Chasing an UWA that doesn't have that is going to be like a dog chasing his tail.

the sigma 12-24mm has very little distortion and is very good otherwise optically. It's a PITA to use with filters, but I have a walk around for that, and it's soft in the corners wide open, but I shoot it stopped down. I'm just trying a crop solution right now w/o going to the 8-16mm as they're only around new right now...

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.

The tokina is NOT and EF lens. It's got an EF mount, but it's image circle is no different that the canon's I'm playing with... You can mount it on FF the way it's shipped, and it works to 14~15~16 depending on how much you stop down and who you ask. But at 16mm, stopped down, the corners are noticeably soft. I'm hoping the 10-22 doesn't have this issue and I've heard it's better, but at least I've shot the 11-16mm on FF personally and am trying the 10-22 myself as well... The tokina also sells for ~$25 less than the 10-22 does used BTW. So the price difference isn't worth bringing up.

Destractions wrote in post #10650354
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.

the tokina is a half stop faster on the wide end and the canon is 10% wider. I'd consider the 10% much bigger than the half a stop, especially because I'm shooting this lens stopped down 90% of the time. The canon also has less distortion, CA and flare -vs- the tokina. The tokina is built maybe a tad better but the canon isn't bad. But the range? The canon is wider AND longer... So yes the 17-40 is wider with more range, but only if you use it on FF. If you want one wide lens for both FF and crop, you NEED to shoot with something that's wide on crop first.

The tokina is built better, but the AF/MF clutch isn't the greatest (drop it and it's toast). It's faster, but only 1/2 a stop at the wide end. It's range is VERY limited. It's got CA, flare and distortion that are all worse than the canon 10-22. It's a VERY nice lens though, all the crop specific UWAs seem to be, but it wasn't for me. I went with wider and better optically and gave up the half stop on the wide end.


here's the tokina at 16mm on FF stopped down, check out the corners:

pit stop?

Justin_Thyme wrote in post #10647702
This is true but the good landscape photographer knows that filters are not needed

You know how I know you aren't a landscape photographer?

I would be scared to death that I would take it beyond 12mm and trash the mirror and I am one of those people who (shock horror) doesn't keep a skylight permanently on my lenses.