Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New Canon 10-22 Lens

Tags:
  • Photo
  • Canon
  • Cameras
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:42:41 PM

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

More about : canon lens

Anonymous
January 27, 2005 5:42:42 PM

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
Anonymous
January 27, 2005 10:04:49 PM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:22:02 AM

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
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:22:03 AM

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
January 28, 2005 3:25:45 AM

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
January 28, 2005 6:23:08 AM

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/understandi...

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
>
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 12:30:50 PM

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
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:05:18 PM

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
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:45:15 PM

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
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:45:16 PM

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=...

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


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 1:49:29 PM

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
Anonymous
January 28, 2005 5:37:56 PM

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=...
>
> 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
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 12:02:32 AM

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=...
>>
>> 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
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 8:51:35 AM

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=...
>>>
>>> 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
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 5:53:54 PM

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=......

>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.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 9:49:49 PM

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=......
>
>> 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?cpr...

I really, really like this lens.



--
Frank ess

Forecasting is difficult. Particularly about the Future.
-Deepak Gupta
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 10:04:54 PM

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=..."

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...*&shs=ew-83&image.x=0&image.y=0"
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:30:34 AM

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=..."
>
> 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...*&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
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:35:55 AM

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=......
>>
>>> 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?cpr...
>
> 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
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:41:44 AM

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=......
>>>
>>>> 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
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 1:21:40 PM

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=......
>>
>>> 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
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 6:34:06 PM

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=..."
>
>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...*&shs=ew-83&image.x=0&image.y=0"

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


--
Scott in Florida
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 7:52:05 PM

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=......
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>
>
!