Canon 10-22mm lens

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RahQ5, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. RahQ5

    RahQ5 Guest

    Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might
    be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks!
     
    RahQ5, Jun 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RahQ5

    default Guest

    The lens is very good. It is also now supported in Canon Digital Photo
    Professional for the automatic lens aberration correction if you use it on a
    supported camera body. Distortions are very low, chromatic aberrations and
    light fall-off are fairly minor. If you use the automatic correction, that
    pretty much takes care of it too or you can do it manually in Photoshop or
    Adobe Camera RAW.

    Be aware that it takes 77mm filters which cost a bit. Remember to get the
    hood.

    Be aware that very thick polarizer filters (like the tamron C-PL filter)
    vignette a little at 10mm.

    Otherwise, enjoy!
     
    default, Jun 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RahQ5

    Vass Guest


    yes, its blimmin expensive
     
    Vass, Jun 18, 2008
    #3
  4. RahQ5

    Joel Guest

    Expensive but good lens.
     
    Joel, Jun 18, 2008
    #4
  5. RahQ5

    Marcin Guest

    Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but quite
    good

    Best Regards
    Martin Gorgolewski
    www.gorgolewski.com
     
    Marcin, Jun 18, 2008
    #5
  6. RahQ5

    rwalker Guest

    I know some people really don't like the Sigmas, but I have one and I've
    been very happy with it. (Can't afford the Canon.)
     
    rwalker, Jun 18, 2008
    #6
  7. RahQ5

    Joel Guest

    I don't own the Sigma 10-20mm but I have read many people like it, and the
    images they capture look real nice to me.
     
    Joel, Jun 19, 2008
    #7
  8. RahQ5

    Vass Guest

    holding around £ 250 with postage on eBay (non Hong Kong)
    approx 4 to 5 per week sell regularly.
     
    Vass, Jun 19, 2008
    #8
  9. RahQ5

    Joel Guest

    It's around 450-500 US$ so it's about right. comparing to around 800US$
    for the Canon 10-22mm (300US$ more expensive), and I don't think the picture
    is twice better.
     
    Joel, Jun 19, 2008
    #9
  10. RahQ5

    Peter Guest


    What Ken Rockwell has to say:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

    Yes, I know he talks about Nikon, but his comments on the Sigma are helpful
    and here's his comment on the Canon:
    The Canon 10 - 22 mm is better than any of these four lenses, including the
    Nikon.

    "What makes the Canon so superior is its vanishing low distortion. What
    little distortion the Canon has is completely fixable in PhotoShop CS2. The
    Canon also has a wider zoom ratio than any of the Nikon, Tamron, Sigma or
    Tokina lenses."
    -more online-
     
    Peter, Jun 20, 2008
    #10
  11. RahQ5

    Joel Guest

    If I look for information of lens I usually look for end users feedbacks
    on www.fredmiranda.com or www.photo.net instead of review. Also, I do have
    Canon, Sigma, Tamron lens and I tell that from the lens I have the Canon is
    usually quicker focus, warmer tone, when Sigma and Tamron may have some
    color issue (color casting) which can be corrected with Photoshop.

    BTW, since I am not a landscape photographer so 17-50mm is the widest lens
    I have, and the wide angle can be very handy.
     
    Joel, Jun 20, 2008
    #11
  12. RahQ5

    Robert Coe Guest

    : wrote:
    :
    : > Any thoughts on this lens? Any unforeseen problems at all that I might
    : > be concerned with, if I get one? Thanks!
    :
    : Expensive but good lens.

    But is it enough better than the Sigma? A WA is on my wish list for next year
    (this year it was a 50-150 f/2.8), and I don't want to have to go into hock to
    get it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2008
    #12
  13. RahQ5

    Robert Coe Guest

    : : >
    : >> : >> >
    : >> >> : >> >> > Try to compare with Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 EX DC HSM - is cheaper but
    : >> >> > quite
    : >> >> > good
    : >> >> >
    : >> >>
    : >> >> I know some people really don't like the Sigmas, but I have one and
    : >> >> I've
    : >> >> been very happy with it. (Can't afford the Canon.)
    : >> >
    : >> > I don't own the Sigma 10-20mm but I have read many people like it, and
    : >> > the images they capture look real nice to me.
    : >>
    : >> holding around £ 250 with postage on eBay (non Hong Kong)
    : >> approx 4 to 5 per week sell regularly.
    : >
    : > It's around 450-500 US$ so it's about right. comparing to around 800US$
    : > for the Canon 10-22mm (300US$ more expensive), and I don't think the
    : > picture is twice better.
    :
    :
    : What Ken Rockwell has to say:
    : http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm
    :
    : Yes, I know he talks about Nikon, but his comments on the Sigma are
    : helpful and here's his comment on the Canon:
    : The Canon 10 - 22 mm is better than any of these four lenses, including
    : the Nikon.
    :
    : "What makes the Canon so superior is its vanishing low distortion. What
    : little distortion the Canon has is completely fixable in PhotoShop CS2.
    : The Canon also has a wider zoom ratio than any of the Nikon, Tamron,
    : Sigma or Tokina lenses."

    By only 2mm at the high end, and almost everybody has a walking-around lens
    that bottoms out below 20mm.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2008
    #13
  14. RahQ5

    Joel Guest

    As I have mentioned in other message that you can always check with
    www.fredmiranda.com for the end users' feedbacks.
     
    Joel, Jun 21, 2008
    #14
  15. RahQ5

    Joel Guest

    Well, if you just compare the "20mm" with "22mm" then you are 100% correct
    that it's "2mm" difference between them two. But you look beyond the 2mm
    difference then you may find other differences.
     
    Joel, Jun 21, 2008
    #15
  16. RahQ5

    default Guest

    I've never used the Sigma 10-20. They both go wide. The Canon has the
    larger aperture at f/3.5-4.5 which you might find nice. Sigma is nice
    enough to provide the hood and case without charging you extra like Canon
    does.

    However there is more to the cost of a lens than the purchase price. You
    have to consider the residual resale value. If the Canon holds its value
    better than the Sigma, you can sell it when you are done and recover most of
    your money. If you were particularly shrewd when purchasing it and bought
    it for a very low price, used rebates, bought a Canon "refurbished" model,
    took advantage of varying currency exchange rates over time etc, then you
    might be able to sell it for as much as you paid for it and it would have
    been free to use. The same might be true of the Sigma, but often it seems
    that Sigma lenses depreciate more than Canon lenses.

    Before buying either, have a look around at the price that both lenses go
    for used and see which would really cost you less.
     
    default, Jun 21, 2008
    #16
  17. RahQ5

    Peter Guest


    When you deal with wide angle, each mm becomes significant.
    I am seriously thinking about the Nikon 10.5 whichis only 1.5 mm more than I
    have.
     
    Peter, Jun 21, 2008
    #17
  18. RahQ5

    Robert Coe Guest

    : : > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:18:37 -0400, "Peter" <>
    : > wrote:
    : > : What Ken Rockwell has to say:
    : > : ...
    : > : "What makes the Canon so superior is its vanishing low distortion. What
    : > : little distortion the Canon has is completely fixable in PhotoShop CS2.
    : > : The Canon also has a wider zoom ratio than any of the Nikon, Tamron,
    : > : Sigma or Tokina lenses."
    : >
    : > By only 2mm at the high end, and almost everybody has a walking-around
    : > lens that bottoms out below 20mm.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : When you deal with wide angle, each mm becomes significant.
    : I am seriously thinking about the Nikon 10.5 which is only 1.5 mm more
    : than I have.

    At the low end, what you say is true, of course. But my point is that if you
    have a decent 18-50mm lens (and most serious SLR users do), it doesn't
    particularly matter whether your wide-angle lens goes to 20mm or 22mm on its
    high end, because both ranges overlap your 18-50.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 22, 2008
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.