New Canon 10-22 Lens

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial trials
with the lens have shown that I have to increase exposure one full stop or
the shots are too dark. Do any of you who have this lens have this problem,
or is it a flaw in the lens? With all my other lenses, I use no exposure
compensation.

Don Dunlap
23 answers Last reply
More about canon lens
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    I have a 20D and the 10-22. I find the camera metering works as well
    with the 10-22 F/3.5-4.5 USM as it does with my 24-70 F/2.8 L USM and
    my 70-200 F/4 L USM.

    What aperture does the camera indicate before you take a shot?
    Have you tried the DOF button to see if the aperture iris is working
    properly?
    Are you taking pictures of diffcult subjects that require exposure
    correction?

    Note: I use partial metering since I found Evaluative and center
    weighted to confuse the camera operator whereas partial is more like a
    spot meter.
    Note: I almost never use anthing other then Av mode.
    Also Note: I find I have to use exposure compensation on roughly 50% of
    my shots (anyway).

    Mitch
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    <MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote in message
    news:1106858437.812313.308500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >I have a 20D and the 10-22. I find the camera metering works as well
    > with the 10-22 F/3.5-4.5 USM as it does with my 24-70 F/2.8 L USM and
    > my 70-200 F/4 L USM.
    >
    > What aperture does the camera indicate before you take a shot?

    I have tried it with several aperature settings, so I couldn't say. I am
    using Exposure Compensation, so it modifies the shutter speed.

    > Have you tried the DOF button to see if the aperture iris is working
    > properly?

    No, but I assume it is OK because my other lenses are OK. I'll check.

    > Are you taking pictures of diffcult subjects that require exposure
    > correction?

    Not particularly. I was initially facing partially into the sun, but
    experimented by turning in all directions with the same settings and the
    exposure was the same on all - dark.

    >
    > Note: I use partial metering since I found Evaluative and center weighted
    > to confuse the camera operator whereas partial is more like a spot meter.

    I use partial metering most of the time also. I take a lot of photos of my
    wife's orchids and usually use center metering then, but I vary from time to
    time.

    > Note: I almost never use anthing other then Av mode.
    > Also Note: I find I have to use exposure compensation on roughly 50% of my
    > shots (anyway).
    >
    I seem to use AV most of the time also. I haven't used exposure
    compensation in the past except on rare occasions. Do you use a full stop
    or fractions?

    > Mitch
    >

    Maybe things are OK, but I have in mind sending it back if it continues to
    be a problem.

    Don Dunlap
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Don Dunlap wrote:
    > I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial
    > trials with the lens have shown that I have to increase exposure one
    > full stop or the shots are too dark. Do any of you who have this
    > lens have this problem, or is it a flaw in the lens? With all my
    > other lenses, I use no exposure compensation.
    >
    > Don Dunlap

    No problems here.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial
    >> trials with the lens have shown that I have to increase exposure one
    >> full stop or the shots are too dark. Do any of you who have this
    >> lens have this problem, or is it a flaw in the lens? With all my
    >> other lenses, I use no exposure compensation.
    >>
    >> Don Dunlap
    >
    > No problems here.

    Nor here.


    --
    Frank ess
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    In article <e4d41$41f981b0$45234631$9245@allthenewsgroups.com>, Don
    Dunlap <dondunlapwhoami@direcway.com> writes
    >
    ><MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote in message
    >news:1106858437.812313.308500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >>I have a 20D and the 10-22. I find the camera metering works as well
    >> with the 10-22 F/3.5-4.5 USM as it does with my 24-70 F/2.8 L USM and
    >> my 70-200 F/4 L USM.
    >
    >> Have you tried the DOF button to see if the aperture iris is working
    >> properly?
    >
    >No, but I assume it is OK because my other lenses are OK. I'll check.

    That the aperture iris works in your other lenses does not prove it
    works in this lens!
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
  6. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Try testing the lens with the sunny 16 rule and then using a grey card.
    Plenty of sites will provide information on how this best works. Probably
    start of with the mainstays such as:

    http://www.photonhead.com/exposure/
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

    regards

    Don
    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    news:N_idnVGZVIOHDGTcRVn-1Q@giganews.com...
    > Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >>> I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial
    >>> trials with the lens have shown that I have to increase exposure one
    >>> full stop or the shots are too dark. Do any of you who have this
    >>> lens have this problem, or is it a flaw in the lens? With all my
    >>> other lenses, I use no exposure compensation.
    >>>
    >>> Don Dunlap
    >>
    >> No problems here.
    >
    > Nor here.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess
    >
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    > > I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial
    > > trials with the lens have shown that I have to increase exposure one
    > > full stop or the shots are too dark. Do any of you who have this
    > > lens have this problem, or is it a flaw in the lens? With all my
    > > other lenses, I use no exposure compensation.
    > >
    > > Don Dunlap
    >
    > No problems here.

    I was about to agree with you, but.

    The 10-22 sees very different compositions, and outside there may be enough
    sky in the scene to mess up matrix, center weighted, or averaging metering.
    So, yes, the 10-22 may be problematic for metering.

    Check the histogram and reshoot if necessary.

    (Obligatory rant: this sort of thing is why you need a spot meter.)

    The OP's lens may be busted. I'd recommend testing metering with the lens
    with identical compositions, e.g. a wall with no sky up close with the 10-22
    and from further away with a longer lens.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:F1Y$wAhJaY+BFwN3@newbrain.demon.co.uk...
    > In article <e4d41$41f981b0$45234631$9245@allthenewsgroups.com>, Don Dunlap
    > <dondunlapwhoami@direcway.com> writes
    >>
    >><MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote in message
    >>news:1106858437.812313.308500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >>>I have a 20D and the 10-22. I find the camera metering works as well
    >>> with the 10-22 F/3.5-4.5 USM as it does with my 24-70 F/2.8 L USM and
    >>> my 70-200 F/4 L USM.
    >>
    >>> Have you tried the DOF button to see if the aperture iris is working
    >>> properly?
    >>
    >>No, but I assume it is OK because my other lenses are OK. I'll check.
    >
    > That the aperture iris works in your other lenses does not prove it works
    > in this lens!
    > --
    > Ian G8ILZ

    You are right, I wasn't thinking.

    Don
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
    news:ctc2mf$d6s$1@nnrp.gol.com...
    >
    > "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> > I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial
    >> > trials with the lens have shown that I have to increase exposure one
    >> > full stop or the shots are too dark. Do any of you who have this
    >> > lens have this problem, or is it a flaw in the lens? With all my
    >> > other lenses, I use no exposure compensation.
    >> >
    >> > Don Dunlap
    >>
    >> No problems here.
    >
    > I was about to agree with you, but.
    >
    > The 10-22 sees very different compositions, and outside there may be
    > enough
    > sky in the scene to mess up matrix, center weighted, or averaging
    > metering.
    > So, yes, the 10-22 may be problematic for metering.
    >
    > Check the histogram and reshoot if necessary.
    >
    > (Obligatory rant: this sort of thing is why you need a spot meter.)
    >
    > The OP's lens may be busted. I'd recommend testing metering with the lens
    > with identical compositions, e.g. a wall with no sky up close with the
    > 10-22
    > and from further away with a longer lens.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    OK - I did some more testing and paid particular attention to the
    histogram - after visiting a couple of sites suggested by another poster.

    It seems that everyting works pretty well, even though I do have to keep
    exposure compensation set to 1 full stop or 2/3 stop. This is when I am
    shooting something relatively close. When I am shooting a long scene, like
    from 100 feet or longer, the histogram is bunched up at either end with
    mid-range being flat. I guess this is an indication that I am seeing a lot
    of sky, and a lot of ground which would be at each end of the histogram. On
    shots within 20-50 feet, everything looks good, with a bell-curve histogram.
    (High point in the center).. The photos look very good for near shots but
    are not what I would expect for distances. I have never owned a wide angle
    lens before though and it may be a feature of the lens.

    Since I forsee that most of my shots with the lens will be relatively close,
    I don't have a major problem. Yesterday was bright and sunny and today is
    overcast. Even the distant shots today were better than yesterday,
    indicating that a lens hood might help. I say this because there was some
    lightness in distant features, even with narrow apertures, suggesting that
    stray light might have affected it.

    Thanks for all the comments and if I am screwed up in my thinking, which is
    likely, let me know.

    Don
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Don Dunlap wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
    > news:ctc2mf$d6s$1@nnrp.gol.com...
    >>
    >> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >>>> I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial

    <snip>

    > Since I forsee that most of my shots with the lens will be relatively
    > close, I don't have a major problem. Yesterday was bright and sunny
    > and today is overcast. Even the distant shots today were better than
    > yesterday, indicating that a lens hood might help. I say this
    > because there was some lightness in distant features, even with
    > narrow apertures, suggesting that stray light might have affected it.
    >
    > Thanks for all the comments and if I am screwed up in my thinking,
    > which is likely, let me know.
    >

    Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3870572180

    It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the rim.
    The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.


    --
    Frank ess
  11. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
    news:F1Y$wAhJaY+BFwN3@newbrain.demon.co.uk...
    > In article <e4d41$41f981b0$45234631$9245@allthenewsgroups.com>, Don Dunlap
    > <dondunlapwhoami@direcway.com> writes
    >>
    >><MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote in message
    >>news:1106858437.812313.308500@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    >>>I have a 20D and the 10-22. I find the camera metering works as well
    >>> with the 10-22 F/3.5-4.5 USM as it does with my 24-70 F/2.8 L USM and
    >>> my 70-200 F/4 L USM.
    >>
    >>> Have you tried the DOF button to see if the aperture iris is working
    >>> properly?
    >>
    >>No, but I assume it is OK because my other lenses are OK. I'll check.
    >
    > That the aperture iris works in your other lenses does not prove it works
    > in this lens!
    > --
    > Ian G8ILZ

    I have checked the DOF button and the aperture iris is working.

    Don
  12. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    news:_P6dnbNTNpVT42fcRVn-tA@giganews.com...
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
    >> news:ctc2mf$d6s$1@nnrp.gol.com...
    >>>
    >>> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >>>>> I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My initial
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> Since I forsee that most of my shots with the lens will be relatively
    >> close, I don't have a major problem. Yesterday was bright and sunny
    >> and today is overcast. Even the distant shots today were better than
    >> yesterday, indicating that a lens hood might help. I say this
    >> because there was some lightness in distant features, even with
    >> narrow apertures, suggesting that stray light might have affected it.
    >>
    >> Thanks for all the comments and if I am screwed up in my thinking,
    >> which is likely, let me know.
    >>
    >
    > Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3870572180
    >
    > It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the rim. The
    > vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess

    Thanks Frank! I ordered one. I have been trying to find one at other sites
    but no one has any. B&H has had them on backorder for a month or more. For
    $23, I can't lose much.

    Thanks again,
    Don
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Don Dunlap wrote:
    > "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    > news:_P6dnbNTNpVT42fcRVn-tA@giganews.com...
    >> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:ctc2mf$d6s$1@nnrp.gol.com...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >>>>>> I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My
    >>>>>> initial
    >>
    >> <snip>

    and again <snip>

    >>>
    >>
    >> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3870572180
    >>
    >> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
    >> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Frank ess
    >
    > Thanks Frank! I ordered one. I have been trying to find one at
    > other sites but no one has any. B&H has had them on backorder for a
    > month or more. For $23, I can't lose much.
    >
    > Thanks again,
    > Don

    You're welcome.

    Just for fun, here's a photo from 16th January, car show at Ellen
    Browning Scripps Park in La Jolla, California. Lovely day, and I
    couldn't understand why all those vapor trails indicated folks headed
    East.

    1/125 @ f/14, ISO 100, 10mm, Exposure compensation -0.33.

    http://www.fototime.com/inv/1A13AFE3010879D

    --
    Frank ess
  14. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    news:XtSdndSqr9P3kGLcRVn-ow@giganews.com...
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    >> news:_P6dnbNTNpVT42fcRVn-tA@giganews.com...
    >>> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >>>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:ctc2mf$d6s$1@nnrp.gol.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> Don Dunlap wrote:
    >>>>>>> I have a Canon 20D and just received my now 10-22 lens. My
    >>>>>>> initial
    >>>
    >>> <snip>
    >
    > and again <snip>
    >
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3870572180
    >>>
    >>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
    >>> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Frank ess
    >>
    >> Thanks Frank! I ordered one. I have been trying to find one at
    >> other sites but no one has any. B&H has had them on backorder for a
    >> month or more. For $23, I can't lose much.
    >>
    >> Thanks again,
    >> Don
    >
    > You're welcome.
    >
    > Just for fun, here's a photo from 16th January, car show at Ellen Browning
    > Scripps Park in La Jolla, California. Lovely day, and I couldn't
    > understand why all those vapor trails indicated folks headed East.
    >
    > 1/125 @ f/14, ISO 100, 10mm, Exposure compensation -0.33.
    >
    > http://www.fototime.com/inv/1A13AFE3010879D
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess
    >

    That's a nice shot. How close behind the two cars were you. I would guess
    about 2-3 feet. I have been tryiing to post a shot I took of my wife's
    shade house that shows the wide angle ability of the lens and a couple of
    the pitfalls associated with it. Pbase is so unreliable that I have been
    unable to upload anything for a while. You were very fortunate to catch the
    three vapor trails. That really added to the photo.

    Don
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    >Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...

    >It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the rim.
    >The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.

    This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
    appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
    EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.

    Canon makes a load of different hoods with the EW-83 designation, it's
    the suffix that indicates which lens it is for.

    EW-83II (20-35)
    EW-83F (24-70)
    EW-83BII (28-70)
    EW-83DII (24)
    EW-83CII (17-35)
    EW-83E (10-22 and 16-35)

    Search for EW-83 on B&H and they all come up, with pictures. You can
    see that the eBay hood is not the proper hood for the 10-22.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Scharf-DCA wrote:
    >> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
    >
    >> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the rim.
    >> The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >
    > This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
    > appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
    > EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
    >
    > Canon makes a load of different hoods with the EW-83 designation, it's
    > the suffix that indicates which lens it is for.
    >
    > EW-83II (20-35)
    > EW-83F (24-70)
    > EW-83BII (28-70)
    > EW-83DII (24)
    > EW-83CII (17-35)
    > EW-83E (10-22 and 16-35)
    >
    > Search for EW-83 on B&H and they all come up, with pictures. You can
    > see that the eBay hood is not the proper hood for the 10-22.

    It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.

    I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the lens
    since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".

    I have made numerous photos with the 10-22 lens at its widest FOV, and
    there is no evidence of the hood encroaching on the view. It seems to me
    there is no wider lens the hood would fit. If it is sold for the other
    lenses, it must offer them less "protection" than it does for the 10-22.

    I think it takes a remarkable eye to distinguish between the 83II and
    83E on the basis of Web photos I've been able to find.

    Any road, if the hood Don receives is not approprate for his 10-22 lens,
    I'll buy it from him, or swap for the one they sent me. I'm perfectly
    happy with it. Some day, when Canon starts making the 83E again, I'll
    put one of these side-by-side with it. _Then_ we'll know.


    New subject: Interesting article on Wide Angles and sensor size, Where
    is the market going? On Creative Pro:
    http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/22468.html?cprose=daily

    I really, really like this lens.


    --
    Frank ess

    Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
    -Deepak Gupta
  17. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Frank ess wrote:

    > It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.

    It's still there. Search for EW-83.

    "http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3871373868&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW#ebayphotohosting"

    The Canon one for the 10-22 is the EW-83E at:

    "http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/239651.jpg"

    The Canon one for the 20-35 is the EW-83II at:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/162038.jpg

    You can see a distinct difference. I'm sure that it will be okay, but I
    think Canon must make the different shapes for a reason.

    > I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the
    lens
    > since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".
    >
    > I have made numerous photos with the 10-22 lens at its widest FOV,
    and
    > there is no evidence of the hood encroaching on the view.

    >From the photos, it looks like the 20-35 hood would not encroach on the
    10-22 lens, but the reverse may not be true.

    > I think it takes a remarkable eye to distinguish between the 83II and

    > 83E on the basis of Web photos I've been able to find.

    The difference is very clear to me.

    Look at:
    "http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=ew-83&image.x=0&image.y=0"
  18. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1107313494.907460.143510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Frank ess wrote:
    >
    >> It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.
    >
    > It's still there. Search for EW-83.
    >
    > "http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3871373868&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW#ebayphotohosting"
    >
    > The Canon one for the 10-22 is the EW-83E at:
    >
    > "http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/239651.jpg"
    >
    > The Canon one for the 20-35 is the EW-83II at:
    >
    > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/162038.jpg
    >
    > You can see a distinct difference. I'm sure that it will be okay, but I
    > think Canon must make the different shapes for a reason.
    >
    >> I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the
    > lens
    >> since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".
    >>
    >> I have made numerous photos with the 10-22 lens at its widest FOV,
    > and
    >> there is no evidence of the hood encroaching on the view.
    >
    >>From the photos, it looks like the 20-35 hood would not encroach on the
    > 10-22 lens, but the reverse may not be true.
    >
    >> I think it takes a remarkable eye to distinguish between the 83II and
    >
    >> 83E on the basis of Web photos I've been able to find.
    >
    > The difference is very clear to me.
    >
    > Look at:
    > "http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=ew-83&image.x=0&image.y=0"
    >

    I can see the difference in the hood at B&H and the one that I ordered from
    the E-bay site, but I'm not sure how radical the difference is. The top
    portion of the Canon hood is larger and more rounded than that on the E-bay
    hood. This would result in the Canon hood providing more shielding than the
    E-bay hood, but it doesn't appear that there would be any interference.
    I'll post here when I get the hood tomorrow and let you know how it turned
    out.

    Don
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    news:_IudnclKtMlNop3fRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
    > Scharf-DCA wrote:
    >>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
    >>
    >>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the rim.
    >>> The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >>
    >> This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
    >> appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
    >> EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
    >>
    >> Canon makes a load of different hoods with the EW-83 designation, it's
    >> the suffix that indicates which lens it is for.
    >>
    >> EW-83II (20-35)
    >> EW-83F (24-70)
    >> EW-83BII (28-70)
    >> EW-83DII (24)
    >> EW-83CII (17-35)
    >> EW-83E (10-22 and 16-35)
    >>
    >> Search for EW-83 on B&H and they all come up, with pictures. You can
    >> see that the eBay hood is not the proper hood for the 10-22.
    >
    > It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.
    >
    > I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the lens
    > since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".
    >
    > I have made numerous photos with the 10-22 lens at its widest FOV, and
    > there is no evidence of the hood encroaching on the view. It seems to me
    > there is no wider lens the hood would fit. If it is sold for the other
    > lenses, it must offer them less "protection" than it does for the 10-22.
    >
    > I think it takes a remarkable eye to distinguish between the 83II and 83E
    > on the basis of Web photos I've been able to find.
    >
    > Any road, if the hood Don receives is not approprate for his 10-22 lens,
    > I'll buy it from him, or swap for the one they sent me. I'm perfectly
    > happy with it. Some day, when Canon starts making the 83E again, I'll put
    > one of these side-by-side with it. _Then_ we'll know.
    >
    >
    > New subject: Interesting article on Wide Angles and sensor size, Where is
    > the market going? On Creative Pro:
    > http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/22468.html?cprose=daily
    >
    > I really, really like this lens.
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess
    >
    > Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
    > -Deepak Gupta
    >

    Frank,

    Thanks for the offer, but I am confident that the hood will be OK. As I
    posted to Scharf-DCA, I can see the difference in the two hoods, but the
    only drawback would be that the E-bay hood would provide a little less
    shielding than the Canon hood.

    I know that Canon probably adequately tested the 83E, but since I cannot
    find anyone who has this hood, I am wondering if they might have stopped
    production in order to re-design it due to some flaw. I have used several
    search engines and can find no one who has the Canon hood. .

    Don
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Don Dunlap wrote:
    > "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    > news:_IudnclKtMlNop3fRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
    >> Scharf-DCA wrote:
    >>>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
    >>>
    >>>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
    >>>> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >>>
    >>> This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
    >>> appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
    >>> EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
    >>>

    <snip-o-rama>

    >>
    >
    > Frank,
    >
    > Thanks for the offer, but I am confident that the hood will be OK. As
    > I posted to Scharf-DCA, I can see the difference in the two hoods,
    > but the only drawback would be that the E-bay hood would provide a
    > little less shielding than the Canon hood.
    >
    > I know that Canon probably adequately tested the 83E, but since I
    > cannot find anyone who has this hood, I am wondering if they might
    > have stopped production in order to re-design it due to some flaw. I
    > have used several search engines and can find no one who has the
    > Canon hood. .
    > Don

    OK, Don. I reckon the Jury will be out for a while yet.


    --
    Frank ess
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    Frank ess wrote:
    > Scharf-DCA wrote:
    >>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
    >>
    >>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
    >>> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >>
    >> This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
    >> appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
    >> EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
    >>
    >> Canon makes a load of different hoods with the EW-83 designation,
    >> it's the suffix that indicates which lens it is for.
    >>
    >> EW-83II (20-35)
    >> EW-83F (24-70)
    >> EW-83BII (28-70)
    >> EW-83DII (24)
    >> EW-83CII (17-35)
    >> EW-83E (10-22 and 16-35)
    >>
    >> Search for EW-83 on B&H and they all come up, with pictures. You can
    >> see that the eBay hood is not the proper hood for the 10-22.
    >
    > It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.
    >
    > I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the lens
    > since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".
    >

    Here 'tis:
    http://www.fototime.com/inv/1A13AFE3010879D


    --
    Frank ess
  22. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    On 1 Feb 2005 19:04:54 -0800, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Frank ess wrote:
    >
    >> It seems the eBay auction is ended, and the photo is gone.
    >
    >It's still there. Search for EW-83.
    >
    >"http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=3871373868&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW#ebayphotohosting"
    >
    >The Canon one for the 10-22 is the EW-83E at:
    >
    >"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/239651.jpg"
    >
    >The Canon one for the 20-35 is the EW-83II at:
    >
    >http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/items/162038.jpg
    >
    >You can see a distinct difference. I'm sure that it will be okay, but I
    >think Canon must make the different shapes for a reason.
    >
    >> I'll put up pictures of the one I received, which has been on the
    >lens
    >> since I received it. You'll be able to see it is inscribed "EW-83".
    >>
    >> I have made numerous photos with the 10-22 lens at its widest FOV,
    >and
    >> there is no evidence of the hood encroaching on the view.
    >
    >>From the photos, it looks like the 20-35 hood would not encroach on the
    >10-22 lens, but the reverse may not be true.
    >
    >> I think it takes a remarkable eye to distinguish between the 83II and
    >
    >> 83E on the basis of Web photos I've been able to find.
    >
    >The difference is very clear to me.
    >
    >Look at:
    >"http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=SearchBar&A=search&Q=*&shs=ew-83&image.x=0&image.y=0"

    You think Canon makes all their profit on the lens shades? <g>


    --
    Scott in Florida
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    news:gM2dnZCwPtJRn5zfRVn-uw@giganews.com...
    > Don Dunlap wrote:
    >> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
    >> news:_IudnclKtMlNop3fRVn-qQ@giganews.com...
    >>> Scharf-DCA wrote:
    >>>>> Here's a good hood for about half the price of Mr Canon's version:
    >>>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30060&item=387...
    >>>>
    >>>>> It seems identical other than some Chinese (?) characters on the
    >>>>> rim. The vendor was quick to ship, seems reliable.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is not the same hood as the one for the 10-22. The one on eBay
    >>>> appears to be the Canon EW-83II (for the 20-35 USM). The one for the
    >>>> EF-S 10-22 is the EW-83E.
    >>>>
    >
    > <snip-o-rama>
    >
    >>>
    >>
    >> Frank,
    >>
    >> Thanks for the offer, but I am confident that the hood will be OK. As I
    >> posted to Scharf-DCA, I can see the difference in the two hoods,
    >> but the only drawback would be that the E-bay hood would provide a
    >> little less shielding than the Canon hood.
    >>
    >> I know that Canon probably adequately tested the 83E, but since I
    >> cannot find anyone who has this hood, I am wondering if they might
    >> have stopped production in order to re-design it due to some flaw. I
    >> have used several search engines and can find no one who has the
    >> Canon hood. .
    >> Don
    >
    > OK, Don. I reckon the Jury will be out for a while yet.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Frank ess

    Frank,

    I got the lens hood in the mail today and it seems to work fine. At first,
    when I installed it, I didn't get it on right and when I took a couple of
    shots, it intruded into the photo. I re-attached it and it doesn't intrude.
    It was a very tight fit - much tighter than my other two hoods.

    I'll probably never know if it offers as much shielding as the Canon hood,
    but the first tests seem to be ok. You never know if it is not working
    until a problem arises, which could be tomorrow or never. So far, I can say
    that it works and is a bargain. Thanks for telling me about it.

    Don
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Canon Cameras