Canon 10-22 mm advice

[RPM05]

I'm thinking of buying a Canon 10-22 mm lens to go on my EOS300D but have heard they don't work on full frame digital cameras. As I'm thinking of updating later onto a 5D is that information true? We are off to Egypt soon and I really don't want to be comprimised with my 24-105 if space is tight with some of the monuments. Any help or suggestions greatly appreciated,
RegardsMark

 

[Lemming51]

Buy the lens for the camera that you have, not for cameras that you might maybe someday want to get.

It doesn't matter that the EF-S 10-22 won't fit on a 5D. On "full frame" cameras that focal length range is rediculously wide and very rarely used.

What happens to the 300D if/when you get a 5D? Sell it? Then sell the 10-22 with it. Kept as a backup? Then the 10-22 will still get use.

I'm thinking of buying a Canon 10-22 mm lens to go on my EOS300D
but have heard they don't work on full frame digital cameras. As
I'm thinking of updating later onto a 5D is that information true?
We are off to Egypt soon and I really don't want to be comprimised
with my 24-105 if space is tight with some of the monuments. Any
help or suggestions greatly appreciated,
RegardsMark

 

[Scandium]

Mark,

If you really need a zoom that wide that works on both a 1.6 crop camera and full frame the only choice is the Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX. I have a 20D, 5D, and a bunch of EOS film bodies and bought it for that reason. On a full frame body this lens is in a league of its own. There is nothing else like it. On a 1.6 crop body the Tokina 12-24 f/4.0, Sigma 10-20, or Canon 10-22 will be sharper, smaller, cheaper, and lighter.

This said, the Sigma 12-24 is one lens that I will not part with. It can capture some incredible views on a full frame camera.

$g

 

[RPM05]

Thanks for the advice. I'm now looking at the Sigma 12-24 but seeking advice on the picture type it produces. At 12mm is it semi fish eye and more of a regular wide angle at the upper end? I'm looking at something for close in outdoor shots and also interior shots. Not looking to much for the fisheye look.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Scandium]

On a full frame camera it captures images with a 122 deg angle of view and straight lines. On a 1.6 crop camera it captures an 84 deg angle of view also with straight lines. This lens has very low distortion for an optic of its focal length range. A number of photographers use this lens for architectural work because the distortion is so low.

It has the unusual 'popeye look' because of the extremely short 12mm focal length and full frame coverage.

$g

 

[thecameraguy]

--

~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~

 

[c.hammett]

I'm thinking of buying a Canon 10-22 mm lens to go on my EOS300D
but have heard they don't work on full frame digital cameras. As
I'm thinking of updating later onto a 5D is that information true?
We are off to Egypt soon and I really don't want to be comprimised
with my 24-105 if space is tight with some of the monuments. Any
help or suggestions greatly appreciated,
RegardsMark

--I've been to Egypt 7 times... most recently in January this year. In the past (pre-digital days) I always had a 28 mm (either zoom or prime) on my film camera and it was fine. Last two trips I had either my first digital, a G3 (4 years ago ) with 28-140 zoom, or this year my 20D with 17-85 IS. I also had my little Pro 1 with 28-200 L zoom on it this year.

I really think yiou'd be fine with the24-105. You can no longer photograph in any tombs in the Valley of Kings, (where you really need a w/a due to tight quarters ), or in the museum in Cairo, or inside the Ramses II and Nefertari temples at Abu Simbel. so mostly you are going to be doing outdoor shots in the markets and at the temples. (You are not even allowed to take a camera into the Cairo museum !)

I personallly do not like the distortion of the 10-22 for my architectural shots, but that is a personal preferance and most posters on the forum do like that dramatic effect. Depends on what you are after. If you aren't going to be happy taking the 24-105, then I'd take something liek the 17-40 L or the 17-85.

Check my Egypt 2007 gallery here to see how my 17-85 worked out this year. My Egypt 2003 gallery had a lot of shots with my little G3 and its 28-140 lens. Here's the link to both:

http://www.pbase.com/chammett/egypt_2003

http://www.pbase.com/chammett/egypt_2007

carolyn
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

 

[Bo Persson]

I love your photos from Egypt!

Bo
--
Bo Persson
[email protected]
You can do it because you believe you can do it. So do it!

 

[c.hammett]

I love your photos from Egypt!

Bo
--
Bo Persson
[email protected]
You can do it because you believe you can do it. So do it!

Thanks Bo. I make do with what I have. Like I mentioned, while I love dramatic distortion for artistic effects, I prefer my architectural shots a little more "pure". To explain that, I taught 20th c. art history for a number of years, so I totally understand distortions. It is just that my personal preference for "trip images" leans to what my eye sees and my brain wants to remember !



carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

 

[Bo Persson]

You recommend the Sigma 12-24 instead of the Canon 10-22? Of course you can remove the distortion by the help of Photoshop.

Bo

--
Bo Persson
[email protected]
You can do it because you believe you can do it. So do it!

 

[c.hammett]

You recommend the Sigma 12-24 instead of the Canon 10-22? Of course
you can remove the distortion by the help of Photoshop.

Bo

--
Bo Persson
[email protected]
You can do it because you believe you can do it. So do it!

--I don't think I ever said or mentioned the Sigma 12-24. I know nothing about that lens. So you must mean this reply to someone else ?

carolyn
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'

 

[SamK2]

Actually, the Canon 10-22 is noted for having quite a low level of distortion, where the word distortion refers to barrel distortion (straight lines appearing curved).

What Carol referred to is what you get with ultra-wide lenses, an unusual perspective that makes close objects appear much larger than distant ones. For some pictures this works well, for others it looks odd.

You recommend the Sigma 12-24 instead of the Canon 10-22? Of course
you can remove the distortion by the help of Photoshop.

Bo

--
Bo Persson
[email protected]
You can do it because you believe you can do it. So do it!

 

[seeingclearly]

I used the Canon 10-22mm last year on a European trip, and I can verify that it has very little barrel or pincushion distortion, is wonderfully sharp in most conditions, and is fast to focus. You can even avoid the vertical perspective lines in a small space by pointing the camera horizontally. All the vertical and horizontal lines will appear straight and at right-angles. If you point up or down though, the perspective gets really exaggerated.

This lens was a winner in the narrow cobbled lanes in Europe and Turkey, because I could not get far enough away sometimes with my 17-85 IS to get doorways properly framed. In dark conditions though, the image stabilising lenses are the best. Even the 17-85 is good for this, because you can get sharpish pics down to about 1/15th of a second.

I took both these lenses with a Canon 20D for seven weeks of walking and traveling in Europe, and I would strongly recommend this combination.

 

[toadlet]

I'm thinking of buying a Canon 10-22 mm lens to go on my EOS300D
but have heard they don't work on full frame digital cameras. As
I'm thinking of updating later onto a 5D is that information true?
We are off to Egypt soon and I really don't want to be comprimised
with my 24-105 if space is tight with some of the monuments. Any
help or suggestions greatly appreciated,
RegardsMark

I have just ordered the Canon 10-22 and would say along with the other simlar thread that you should buy 'for the moment' not what may be in the future. Sure you may get a 5D, but you could sell the 10-22 in the future and get much of your money back. You may also keep your 300D as a backup camera and keep your wide angle. On the other hand you can sell them later and then buy something like the 16-35L or even the 24-105L which isn't as wide but provides a dynamic view range.

 

[guitarist]

my 10-22 MAY make me keep the 20D as a backup

a great city lens..

on a trip to Chicago 800 out of 900 shots were 10-22 canon

------------

if the new 16-35 is great...it May cause me to leave the 10-22 and thus the 20D behind...

the 10-22 will however hold value....
I highly recommend it

even though it wont fit a ff camera
http://groups.msn.com/more2tomphotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=31
http://groups.msn.com/more2tomphotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=88
http://groups.msn.com/more2tomphotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=17

TOM

 

[solenostomus]

Lenses don't overlap well for 1.6x crop and FF cameras. A lens that got used to on a crop body might have an awkward focal length range on FF and vice versa.

Get the 10-22 now and sell it when you sell the 300D. It's good lens with a very good resale value. You'll get much of your money back.

--
http://www.fredwobus.com

 

[c.hammett]

Actually, the Canon 10-22 is noted for having quite a low level of
distortion, where the word distortion refers to barrel distortion
(straight lines appearing curved).

What Carol referred to is what you get with ultra-wide lenses, an
unusual perspective that makes close objects appear much larger
than distant ones. For some pictures this works well, for others
it looks odd.

Yes, perspective distortion is what I was referring to. (Sorry I didin't define that !) I do like these distortions for effect and dramatic images, but it depends on the purpose of the picture. For my "travel memories" I prefer more true-to-life architectural photographic rendering, as that is what my eye saw. Just my personal preference.

carolyn
--
Ranger a.k.a chammett
http://www.pbase.com/chammett

'elegance is simplicity'