| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/01/2005 10:06:46 AM · #1 |
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens
VS
EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM Zoom Lens
Has anyone used BOTH lenses and can make an honest judgement?
Pros/Cons of each?
Price wise, they are the same (within 100 I think).
Thanks
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 10:11:56 AM · #2 |
Depends what you want to shoot. One is very wide 16mm at its widest the other less wide at 27mm (35mm equivalent). In terms of sharpness the 17-40 beats the 10-22 hands down.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 10:45:23 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 11:21:01 AM · #4 |
FWIW, these two lenses really should not be regarde as competitive, they are really complementeary. They don't overlap as much as it would seem. 10mm is soooo muych wider than 17mm it's just not funny, and 17mm and 22m are different but not night-and-day.
A few words (OK more than a few) about the 10-22. I recognize that folks want an ultra-wide lens for 1.6-crop cameras, but realize that at 10mm, there will be severe distortion at the edges of the frame. Yes, straight lines will remain straight, but objects will appear greatly stretched horizontally. You don't want people in the corners of a shot at 10mm, LOL.
I much prefer a 15mm fisheye perspective, which does not hold straight lines, but has more pleasing "distortion", IMO. Shot carefully, a 15mm fisheye on a 1.6-crop cam almost loses it's "fishy" look. It has about the same FoV as a 11mm rectilinear lens.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 11:29:12 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:25:06 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, these two lenses really should not be regarde as competitive, they are really complementeary. They don't overlap as much as it would seem. 10mm is soooo muych wider than 17mm it's just not funny, and 17mm and 22m are different but not night-and-day.
A few words (OK more than a few) about the 10-22. I recognize that folks want an ultra-wide lens for 1.6-crop cameras, but realize that at 10mm, there will be severe distortion at the edges of the frame. Yes, straight lines will remain straight, but objects will appear greatly stretched horizontally. You don't want people in the corners of a shot at 10mm, LOL.
I much prefer a 15mm fisheye perspective, which does not hold straight lines, but has more pleasing "distortion", IMO. Shot carefully, a 15mm fisheye on a 1.6-crop cam almost loses it's "fishy" look. It has about the same FoV as a 11mm rectilinear lens. |
The Fisheye is definitely on my list of lenses to buy in the next year. You make valid points, you all do.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:40:09 PM · #7 |
| Well... the FOV with the 10-22mm is 107.5 - 63.5°, pretty wide, the 17-40L is 74 - 29°, that's hardly any overlap. However the tamron 17-35mm says it's 104 to 63 Degrees. I don't think this is correct however... I do know that a 15mm fisheye is 180º... so 15mm there is wider than 10mm on the other lens. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 12:55:15 PM · #8 |
Well I only have the 10-22, and it's a good lens. Very fast to focus, good colors, good sharpness, and yes, a fair amount of distortion at shorter focal lengths.
But it's a fun lens. Fritz, what would be the difference between the a non-circular fisheye at 15mm and the 10-22 at 15mm?
Message edited by author 2005-05-01 12:55:29. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 01:11:21 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Well... the FOV with the 10-22mm is 107.5 - 63.5°, pretty wide, the 17-40L is 74 - 29°, that's hardly any overlap. However the tamron 17-35mm says it's 104 to 63 Degrees. I don't think this is correct however... I do know that a 15mm fisheye is 180º... so 15mm there is wider than 10mm on the other lens. |
When you quote FoV, you need to be sure you're quoting the FoV for the sensor size in question and whether the numbers represent horizontal or diagonal FoV.
The math for fisheye FoV is also different than for rectilinear lenses. Hers's a comparison of the FoV you get at various focal lengths for both 1.6-crop and full-frame cameras:
In this chart, HFoV is the horizontal FoV in degrees, and DFoV is the diagonal. Notice that the fisheye is actually not as wide as a 10mm rectilinear lens on a 1.6-crop cam, but on a full-frame camera, it's a different story. The 180-degree FoV number for the 15mm fisheye is a diagonal FoV on a full-frame camera. We often see 15mm fisheye lenses marketed as "180-degree coverage" but that's a bit of marketing hyperbole. I should also note that AFAIK, there is no 10mm lens available that will cover a full-frame sensor, so my numbers are hypothetical.
As a final note, the numbers in the above chart are based on calculations, not lens specs. Slight variation from these numbers may be due to focal lengths not quite matching or distortion (not true rectilinear performance). I've found the calculations very accurate in the limited testing I've done to compare to real-life scenarios.
Message edited by author 2005-05-01 15:40:36.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 02:09:24 PM · #10 |
Very interesting indeed! Do you have a 1.3x crop chart as well?
Message edited by author 2005-05-01 14:09:53. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 02:26:30 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Very interesting indeed! Do you have a 1.3x crop chart as well? |
Added 1.3 crop data and per nshapiro's question, added a line for 15mm rectilinear. Numbers in red designate that no actual lens exists in this range for this sensor size. Green indicates the "marketing" number often published for the 15mm fisheye.
Edit for typo.
Edit again... Looking at my numbers I realized that there was an error affecting the DFoV for the rectilinear lenses. I corrected this and added lines for 30mm and 50mm. Numbers in blue are the closest to "normal" perspective for each crop factor.
Also, here's a nice resource for understanding calculaton of FoV. Note the discussion (hear the bottom) of the Canon 15mm fisheye.
Message edited by author 2005-05-01 15:39:16.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 03:19:52 PM · #12 |
I have the 10-22 and sometimes I wonder how I ever lived without it.
June
|
|
|
|
05/01/2005 04:44:06 PM · #13 |
I have the sigma 12-24 and it rocks.
I want to check out the Sigma 10-20 when it comes out, but overall, I'm happy with the Sigma. |
|
|
|
05/01/2005 09:53:35 PM · #14 |
Thanks for the comments. Right now, when I need a really wide angle, I use the 18-55, and that seems pretty sufficient as far as a FOV goes.
I will purchase the 17-40. I don't really need the 10-22, I mean I dont need that kind of FOV. Thank you all again.
|
|
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: 09/16/2025 12:26:36 PM EDT.
