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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Wide angle lens for 400D
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 43 of 43, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 07/14/2010 02:54:48 PM · #26
I have access to the 10-22 - I've found it to be a fairly flawless lens - with one Caveat - it is an EF-S lens, if you ever expect to go to a full frame camera (5D Mark II or 1Ds in the Canon line) you will have an investment you can't carry forward. I've used it on a 30D and 40D and it performed far better than my skills...
 07/14/2010 03:38:06 PM · #27
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I think you may have missed my point.. All of those lenses will be effectively useless with a polarizer.

If you're not using a polarizer, then what types of filters are you intending to use? The reason I ask is that most of those filters are actually much better when done in post processing (less glass = cleaner image)..

So I'm just curious what filters are so amazing that you can't live without them.. (I might have to go buy some! :) )


A couple points, Cory:

1: the CPL is NOT "basically useless" on the 10-22mm lens; I have one and have used it quite a bit. It is true that at 10mm it's hopeless in the sky, the lens is just too wide by half, BUT it makes a good starting point and you can mask and apply a gradient in the color of the polarized sky to even out the unpolarized part, so it's doable.

2. the CPL is not limited, for usefulness, to skies; in fact, in many ways its greatest utility is in saturating colors by removing scattered reflections from surfaces and in reducuing or eliminating surface reflections in general, like when you have a lot of foreground with water running through it, like low tide ripples on ocean beaches, whatever.

3. Other very useful filters would include the category of ND filters to increase daylight exposure times for soft effects with moving water, and graduated ND filters for bringing contrasty scenes into reasonable balance where true multiple-exposure HDR is not an option.

So, in a nutshell, there are valid reasons to be concerned about an ultrawide's compatibility with affordable filters :-)

R.


Good points indeed, I suppose I should have at least improved upon that by saying "somewhat useless for landscapes", as I was indeed thinking only of the sky issues. I do use CPL's for other stuff, primarily killing water reflections, window reflections.. etc.

And I just figured with the grad. ND, it's probably not a huge deal to use a larger one, but that might be stupid expensive, I've no real idea...
 07/14/2010 09:20:32 PM · #28
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by dswann:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Thanks for the informative replies. It's really helping me a lot. I have kept sigma 8-16 out of consideration since I don't want to work on landscapes without using filters. I am a bit surprised that nobody is strongly recommending canon 10-22 except very few notes about suggestions.


I have read from several sources that a CPL filter should not be used on any ultra wide angle lens. The effect of a CPL depends on the angle to the sun, and the lens covers such a wide expanse of sky that you get banding and other weirdness from the filter. You can still use ND filters, etc. just not a polarizer.


Funny enough, you don't even need an UWA to see the effect, often @ 28mm on a 1.6 crop I can STILL see the effect when using a polarizer - it's just much, much worse on an UWA lens..


Anyway I am not interested in 8-16 & dont want a debate on that lens further. I basically want feedback on Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, sigma 10-20 & Tamron 12-24.


I think you may have missed my point.. All of those lenses will be effectively useless with a polarizer.

If you're not using a polarizer, then what types of filters are you intending to use? The reason I ask is that most of those filters are actually much better when done in post processing (less glass = cleaner image)..

So I'm just curious what filters are so amazing that you can't live without them.. (I might have to go buy some! :) )


Yes as noted by Bear_Music I am looking for Split ND filter. I will prefer using that than doing HDR stuff. It helps me to get a better exposed land without overexposing the sky. The ND filters of Cokin I think are cheap enough to afford.
 07/14/2010 10:31:50 PM · #29
I use a simple 77mm for my ND8 normal filter.

For Grad filters, I use the square filters with the P system. Vignetting is sometimes a minor issue with the square filters, especially if I'm not using the grad filter perfectly straight. I sometimes have to zoom in a bit. I could just as easily crop in too or just clone up the corners (which I am much more likely to do).

I have the grad ND2 and ND4 and I use them a lot more than the CPL.

I'm specifically trying to learn how to use grads well so I know better when to use them and when not to use them.

I'll probably pick up a grad ND8 just for the heck of it.

I also find these filters useful for doing movies. Post Processing in movies is much more restricted than PP in stills.

Technically speaking, I suppose you could do some manner of tone mapping in After Effects or maybe even Vegas, but it would be very labor intensive.

Message edited by author 2010-07-14 22:36:55.
 07/14/2010 10:53:38 PM · #30
Though I am using split ND filter me too want to know better on it's use. But this will divert the purpose of this thread. If anybody knows a link to such thread already discussed kindly give a link to it or relevant online tutorial.
What I know is that one has to meter the land & sky separately. According to the stop difference in them square split ND filter to be used. What I doubt is that is it possible to use these filters with lens hood?
 07/14/2010 11:08:22 PM · #31
Not necessary to use a lens hood since the filter attachment does much of the same thing.

I have a lens hood for the 10-22 and it's not very deep. The Cokin filter holder isn't quite as deep, but the correct lens hood does show that 'a little goes a long way' for blocking oblique light on UWA lenses.

Once I get time, I'll probably create a thread to share what I have learned and make it an open discussion. Maybe it will save some effort for those I am working with.

Message edited by author 2010-07-14 23:09:50.
 07/14/2010 11:43:43 PM · #32
Originally posted by eschelar:
...the correct lens hood does show that 'a little goes a long way' for blocking oblique light on UWA lenses.


Actually what it shows is the lens hood is practically worthless on these lens :-) Since it has to not vignette at 10mm it's essentially meaningless at any longer zoom. This is why it is so critically important that you have an ultrawide with superior performance in the flare and ghosting area. Because you ARE going to have issues with direct light on the front element, it cannot be escaped. The Canon is exceptionally good in this area. It keeps its contrast even in high-flare situations, and rarely shows more than a hint of flare on the inner lens elements (those oblique, bright sun-dogs and streaks you often see in lower-qualitt glass.

R.
 07/14/2010 11:50:40 PM · #33
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by eschelar:
...the correct lens hood does show that 'a little goes a long way' for blocking oblique light on UWA lenses.


Actually what it shows is the lens hood is practically worthless on these lens :-) Since it has to not vignette at 10mm it's essentially meaningless at any longer zoom. This is why it is so critically important that you have an ultrawide with superior performance in the flare and ghosting area. Because you ARE going to have issues with direct light on the front element, it cannot be escaped. The Canon is exceptionally good in this area. It keeps its contrast even in high-flare situations, and rarely shows more than a hint of flare on the inner lens elements (those oblique, bright sun-dogs and streaks you often see in lower-qualitt glass.

R.


Thanks for the info. I was worried about lens hood since many times I got lens flare problem while using ND filter on my 18-55. But after all it's 18-55 it looks like I can't compare it with 10-22. Did you mean to say it's OK if I don't opt for buying a lens hood for 10-22. I came to know 10-22 doesn't come with hood & much more.
 07/15/2010 12:18:47 AM · #34
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by eschelar:
...the correct lens hood does show that 'a little goes a long way' for blocking oblique light on UWA lenses.


Actually what it shows is the lens hood is practically worthless on these lens :-) Since it has to not vignette at 10mm it's essentially meaningless at any longer zoom. This is why it is so critically important that you have an ultrawide with superior performance in the flare and ghosting area. Because you ARE going to have issues with direct light on the front element, it cannot be escaped. The Canon is exceptionally good in this area. It keeps its contrast even in high-flare situations, and rarely shows more than a hint of flare on the inner lens elements (those oblique, bright sun-dogs and streaks you often see in lower-qualitt glass.

R.


I have to say that the lens hood is important with the Tokina lens. Flare can be an issue otherwise. I don't know how well a square filter system would do as a substitute since I don't have any of those type filters yet. At least the hood comes with the lens :)

Message edited by author 2010-07-15 00:19:42.
 07/15/2010 01:00:23 AM · #35
Originally posted by bnilesh:

Thanks for the info. I was worried about lens hood since many times I got lens flare problem while using ND filter on my 18-55. But after all it's 18-55 it looks like I can't compare it with 10-22. Did you mean to say it's OK if I don't opt for buying a lens hood for 10-22. I came to know 10-22 doesn't come with hood & much more.


Well, I have the lens hood, both for the 10-22mm and the 17-40mm, which is the same coverage on my 5D, and I use them pretty much whenever I am using the lens, but it isn't because of the flare; it's because I like that lens hoods are my front-line defense against banging against things when I'm a little careless. I honestly don't think the hood's of much use otherwise, except MAYBE all the way out as wide as the lens goes in situations when low light is raking nearly parallel to the lens surface.

I have taken lots of flareless pictures with the 10-22mm where the sun is IN the frame, for heaven's sake :-) I'll see if I can dig one up...

R.
 07/15/2010 03:39:19 AM · #36
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Is really attracting me over Canon 10-22 considering the price tag. I think there is no major difference. Kindly guide me over that issue.
 07/15/2010 04:56:30 AM · #37
Originally posted by bnilesh:
Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Is really attracting me over Canon 10-22 considering the price tag. I think there is no major difference. Kindly guide me over that issue.


Well, as I mentioned thats what I want for. I find it an extremly capable lens and you can see the quality of the ribbon winning shots taken with it. I've not had issue with flare or ghosting and have had good use out of it in various light conditions. It came with me when I went to Rome and did excellent service there under really bright conditions.

I'm not a landscape expert however so you may find that the canon gives you a slight edge in performance - although as discussed above, APS-C sensors are not necessarily the pro-landscape choice in general.
 07/15/2010 05:02:49 AM · #38
From what i've researched, the Tokina 11-16 is an awsome wide angle lens.
Check out this review:
//www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon
Cheers
 07/16/2010 06:37:34 AM · #39
Finally I opted for Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM. Hope everything goes well & I will let you know about it's experience. Thanks for replying & guiding :)
 07/16/2010 06:58:23 AM · #40
aww!! I'm too late -- I was going to rave and tell you to get the canon 10-22. oh well. Enjoy!!
 07/17/2010 01:27:52 AM · #41
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by bnilesh:
I basically want feedback on Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24, Tokina 11-16, sigma 10-20 & Tamron 12-24.

Buy the Sigma or Canon. If you bought the Tamron, I would have to share the 15 slots on the equipment page for that lens with you.


I have opted as you suggested :)
By the way nice to see your so nice work with Tamron 10-24 !!
 07/17/2010 01:32:06 AM · #42
Originally posted by bnilesh:
I have opted as you suggested :)
By the way nice to see your so nice work with Tamron 10-24 !!


I'm sure my suggestion really had nothing to do with the decision. You'll enjoy having a wideangle.
 07/21/2010 03:52:36 AM · #43
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by eschelar:
...the correct lens hood does show that 'a little goes a long way' for blocking oblique light on UWA lenses.


Actually what it shows is the lens hood is practically worthless on these lens :-) Since it has to not vignette at 10mm it's essentially meaningless at any longer zoom.
R.


Yeah, that's kind of what I meant.

Small lens hood - you don't need much.

Even though the cokin filter holder isn't as tall as the lens hood itself, since the lens hood is already quite small, the cokin filter holder is probably not all that far off, so it probably isn't necessary to add a lens hood as well as the filter holder.

I don't think I said it very clearly though. :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 05:20:18 PM

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: 08/02/2025 05:20:18 PM EDT.