DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Help!! Best Wide Angle Canon Lens.
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 34 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/24/2005 03:05:59 PM · #26
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I like my 10-22 a lot. I love the sharpness and the 10mm focal length, but I have noted there's a fair amound of distortion around the outer parts of shots. But I don't have anything else this wide to compare it to.

I've found on hikes, if I only can take one lens, that's the one! I have a bunch of shots from my Acadia vacation with this lens I'll post soon, but here's some I already have uploaded:





The only downside is the 77mm filter size and the high price. Also, I would have liked to have IS (at least for me, my hands are not steady enough, some days I can shoot with this lens at 1/8 of a second but other days I miss at 1/30). The new Canon 24-105/F4L is interesting in that respect (but I haven't heard the price yet).

I presume, Robert, by being careful composing, you mean to keep the camera level?


The "distortion" you're referring to is 100% a function of the extremely wide angle of view, and is inescapable. It's a matter of perspective; if things at the edges of the framer are close to the camera, their perspective is VERY "distorted" simply because all lines in a shot are receding to the same vanishing point, and things close to the edge really show this. There's no "optical" distortion in this lens; straight lines remain straight wherever they are.

As to composition, yes, leveling the camera is part of it, because if you point up or down at all the verticals are really going to diverge'converge dramatically. But that's important no matter what lens you use, really. I was referring more to being extremely meticulous in composition in order to avoid, as much as possible, the "distortion" to which you are referring; you want to keep a close eye on what's happening around the edges with this lens.

Furthermore, it's really hard to get a "subject" with this lens; things that are actually quite prominent visually in the middle ground tend to diminish into insignificance at 10mm. It's important to integrate a visually compelling foreground into the shots, or if you have a dramatic sky then show a lot of it. Your "Twilight's Last Gleaming" shot, arguably, is a little weak in this area. There's a lot of undifferentiated foreground. There are some big "sheets" of somethign in the deep shadow, and they provide some relief, but they don't really seem to be worth the emphasis they're receiving (or would receive if the foreground were a tad lighter) so, for me, the shot's a little weak in that fully half of it doesn't engage me visually at all.

"Rain Over the Mohawk", on the other hand, is a marvelous example of what this lens does so well; it integrates broad, visually compelling foregrounds into an even broader landscape extraordinarily well. If you try to imagine taking the same shot from, say, 100 feet further back with a 28mm lens, you can easily see that there's no WAY the foreground plant could dominate the image like this. The field of view of this lens at 10mm is about 100 degrees, extremely wide, and you are literally looking DOWN on anything in the foreground while you have a normal perspective on objects from the middle ground on out. THIS is the feature that needs to be taken into account when composing landscapes for this lens.

Robt.
 08/24/2005 03:19:33 PM · #27
Super nice pics. This is just made my desision.
Rented the 10-22mm.
25$ a day - 18$ for aditional day.

Originally posted by bear_music:
10-22mm in landscape photography:



Whether you want this or another lens depends largely on whether you can live with the gap between 22mm and 35mm, the next widest lens in your bag. The 16-35 or the 17-40 leaves you no gap, but no truly extreme wide angle either.

The remarkable thing about the 10-22 is that it's utterly free of barrel distortion even at 10mm. I was blown away by it when I tested it. But 10mm is REALLY wide, you have to compose carefully.

As for sharpness of the 10-22mm, it seems very sharp to me, but you have to be aware that the details you are recording are rendered so small in such a wide field of view that they sometimes are outside the ability of our sensors to really crisp them up. NO lens this wide can look as tack-sharp as, say, the the Canon 85mm 1.8; it's in the nature of the beast. And the images can't be displayed to advantage at 640 pixels on a computer screen either; on the full-size image, you'll find that as you zoom in it appears to get sharper and sharper; that's the screen resolution in play. My prints from this lens, at approx 12x16 inches, are super-sharp.

Robt.
08/24/2005 03:22:52 PM · #28
Thanks Robert for the additional explanation and the analysis. I see what you mean with "Twilights Last Gleaming". Of course, in that case, I darkened the foreground in postprocessing because my wife told me the dock was ugly ;)

I used the 10-22 in a nice shot of sunset at the Bass Harbor lighthouse in Maine last week, using a pool of water on the rocks in the foreground. Still need to process those, and the biggest issue for me is that I left the tripod in the car, and after climbing out on the rocks, decided to try to hand hold it, which was a mistake because it was a cloudy sunset and as a result I had to use higher ISO to try and get my shutter speed to where I could hold steady. Hence, an example where I wished it had IS!
 08/24/2005 03:26:22 PM · #29
Thank you all for your input.

As stated in my above post I went with the 10-22. I think the 14mm prime would have been a bit sharper but Bear music shows that Sharpness really isn't a factor with the 10-22mm and I get a little of play in zoom.

Thanks again,

Corwyn
 08/24/2005 03:46:47 PM · #30
Originally posted by Corwyn:
Thank you all for your input.

As stated in my above post I went with the 10-22. I think the 14mm prime would have been a bit sharper but Bear music shows that Sharpness really isn't a factor with the 10-22mm and I get a little of play in zoom.

Thanks again,

Corwyn


Have fun, dude...

R.
 08/24/2005 05:08:30 PM · #31
Originally posted by Corwyn:
What is the best Wide Angle Cannon Lens for Landscapes. I am using my 20D.

I am going to Las Vegas and plan on spending some time in the Desert and at the Grand Canyon. I have a helicopter booked for a 5 hour trip to Hoover Dam and the Canyon.

17-40L
10-22
16-35
35L

I'm renting so don't worry about cost.

Thanks in advance


If your considering the 35, also consider the 24 tilt shift. A very often overlooked , but fantastic landscape lens.
 08/24/2005 05:48:37 PM · #32
has the sigma 10-22? come out yet? I knew it was do soon? any reviews compared to the canon?
 08/24/2005 05:56:00 PM · #33
Originally posted by C-Fox:
has the sigma 10-22? come out yet? I knew it was do soon? any reviews compared to the canon?

It's a Sigma 10-20, and it's out of stock at B&H.
 08/24/2005 05:59:42 PM · #34
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by C-Fox:
has the sigma 10-22? come out yet? I knew it was do soon? any reviews compared to the canon?

It's a Sigma 10-20, and it's out of stock at B&H.


In stock here:
//www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/PageDisplay?dest=frames.jsp¤cy=CAD&storeId=10001

Better price at Camera Canada: //www.cameracanada.com/eNet-cart/Product.asp?pid=EXDC1020C&type=1,3 OOS

Message edited by author 2005-08-24 18:03:04.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:20:39 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:20:39 AM EDT.