Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 20D Wide angles?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:31:36 PM

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

It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
don't see much choice here.

Any suggestions? How good it This lens?


**********************************************************

"Daddy Daddy. It was just like you said
Now that the living outnumber the dead.
Where I come from it's a long thin thread
Across an ocean. Down a river of red.
Now that the living outnumber the dead. I'm one of many."

"Speak My Language"
Laurie Anderson from
"Bright Red"

More about : canon 20d wide angles

Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:31:37 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...

> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.

Sigma has announced a 10-20mm with available EOS mount, but it isn't
out yet. The Sigma 12-24mm got a lousy review, but it may have been a
defective lens. With uneven quality, and interface issues, it wasn't
worth the risk to me.

I hestitated about the EF-S 10-22mm, but as you said, there isn't much
choice. If I ever buy a body that doesn't take EF-S lenses, at least I
can resell it for about 1/2 of what I paid. Look for a Dell 10% off
sale, combined with a $75 off Dell coupon. Open a Dell account and get
another 2% off. Net cost to me was around $650, which is outrageous,
but better than the $800 most places are charging.

People complain about CA, but what do you expect. The small sensor
size, and the wide angle, cause this, no way around it really.

I had a hard time finding the proper lens hood, but B&H finally got
some in stock, but sold out of them (EW-83E). Don't buy the eBay lens
hood, it's the wrong one.

Steve
http://digitalslrinfo.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:03:56 PM

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

scharf.steven@gmail.com writes:

> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>
>> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>> don't see much choice here.
>
> Sigma has announced a 10-20mm with available EOS mount, but it isn't
> out yet. The Sigma 12-24mm got a lousy review, but it may have been a
> defective lens. With uneven quality, and interface issues, it wasn't
> worth the risk to me.

Well, yes, it got *a* lousy review, and also a lot of very *good*
reviews. My 24hrs of usage experience was quite positive.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:23:08 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.
>
> Any suggestions? How good it This lens?

Mine came yesterday so have only taken a few test shots ... so far so good.
The build quality is good and the focusing is fast.

I too was concerned about investing in EF-S but thought, what the heck, I
will probably not own a 35 mm size sensor camera for several years.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:41:36 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.
>
> Any suggestions? How good it This lens?

It's said to be "L" quality but it can't get the red stripe because it's an
EF-S.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:39:58 PM

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

In article <6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.
>
> Any suggestions? How good it This lens?
>

It's lacking considering its outrageous $750 store price.
I expected some edge blurring due to the extreme perspective
distortion but it has the old Olympus C series look.

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Outdoors/Jan%202005%20...
- Some blur is a DOF problem but there's nasty purple fringing.

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/Outdoors/Jan%202005%20...
- Bad blur and purple fringing.

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Dec%2...
http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Dec%2...
- I was careful with these so I'm surprised at the blurriness.

The poor quality was originally obscured by a bad Hoya polarizer
that was fogged and vignetted. I got a refund on the Hoya only to
find a mess of blur revealed from the previously darkened corners.
Had there been more time for me to think about it, I might have
returned the lens too.

The optics would be great for a lens costing $400. Ultra-fast
USM focusing is very cool but the $800 list price seems
unjustified.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:51:18 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.
>
> Any suggestions? How good it This lens?
>
>
> **********************************************************
>
> "Daddy Daddy. It was just like you said
> Now that the living outnumber the dead.
> Where I come from it's a long thin thread
> Across an ocean. Down a river of red.
> Now that the living outnumber the dead. I'm one of many."
>
> "Speak My Language"
> Laurie Anderson from
> "Bright Red"

Just out of curiosity, John, why have you been avoiding the S lenses? My
Canon 20D came with a 17-85mm EF-S lens, and it's purdy darn good. I've
also been thinking about buying another lens, and it is an S lens, too.

Clyde Torres
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:51:19 PM

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

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 20:51:18 GMT, "Clyde Torres"
<clyde_torres@boohoo.com> wrote:

>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>> don't see much choice here.
>>
>> Any suggestions? How good it This lens?
>>
>>
>> **********************************************************
>
>Just out of curiosity, John, why have you been avoiding the S lenses? My
>Canon 20D came with a 17-85mm EF-S lens, and it's purdy darn good. I've
>also been thinking about buying another lens, and it is an S lens, too.

I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
the glass I can use with future technology. It maybe "purty darn
good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?


**********************************************************

"Daddy Daddy. It was just like you said
Now that the living outnumber the dead.
Where I come from it's a long thin thread
Across an ocean. Down a river of red.
Now that the living outnumber the dead. I'm one of many."

"Speak My Language"
Laurie Anderson from
"Bright Red"
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:51:19 PM

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

In article <1109971393.025542.36380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Clyde Torres wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, John, why have you been avoiding the S
> > lenses? My Canon 20D came with a 17-85mm EF-S lens, and it's purdy
> > darn good. I've also been thinking about buying another lens, and
> > it is an S lens, too.
>
> Try and mount an EF-S lens on a non-EF-S body.

We try to do something, not try and do something.

-M
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:51:20 PM

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

John A. Stovall wrote:

> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
> rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
> the glass I can use with future technology. It maybe "purty darn
> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?


Here's a full-res shot taken with the 17-40L on the 10D.
I'm pretty happy with it, but it's the only Canon lens I've got.

<http://www.terrapinphoto.com/maine.jpg&gt;


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:51:20 PM

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

Mr. Magoo wrote:
> In article <1109971393.025542.36380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Clyde Torres wrote:
>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, John, why have you been avoiding the S
>>> lenses? My Canon 20D came with a 17-85mm EF-S lens, and it's purdy
>>> darn good. I've also been thinking about buying another lens, and
>>> it is an S lens, too.
>>
>> Try and mount an EF-S lens on a non-EF-S body.
>
> We try to do something, not try and do something.
>
> -M

OK, I been waiting for this, collecting brown stamps.

--> If you write "then" when you mean "than" you're wrong
--> And _vice_ _versa_.
--> If "that" rather than "than" you're wrong
--> If "different than" rather than "different from" same-o
--> If "over" instead of "more than" you're wrong
--> It's wrong to write "it's" when you mean "its"
--> "A criterion", "some criteria"; "awesome"
--> There is a reason we don't say "reason why"
--> "Feel" and "think" are not the same, I think.
--> I feel as if I've picked up a virus; "terrific ! "
--> I think I might try and fail.


--
Please visit the Apostrophe Protection Site
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
and make a commitment. Thank you.

Frank ess

PS: -M, I had lunch with your voice in about 1955 ...
March 5, 2005 12:15:14 AM

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

> Guess you can't afford an education or "L" lenses, given the quality
> of your response.

Im probably more rich and more educated than you, english is not my
language, thats it.

You think that post was for you ? You cant afford L lenses ? Just get a
point & shoot then.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 12:43:36 AM

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

"How good it This lens? "

Mine is just dandy, sharpness like my 24-70 F/2.8 L USM, build quality
like my 70-200 F/4. I really wanted to dislike this lens for not being
an L, but its wideness, sharpness and contrast won over my heart.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 3:21:04 AM

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

I can only say I like mine

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.
>
> Any suggestions? How good it This lens?
>
>
> **********************************************************
>
> "Daddy Daddy. It was just like you said
> Now that the living outnumber the dead.
> Where I come from it's a long thin thread
> Across an ocean. Down a river of red.
> Now that the living outnumber the dead. I'm one of many."
>
> "Speak My Language"
> Laurie Anderson from
> "Bright Red"
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 5:17:33 AM

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

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 21:15:14 -0500, "Chuck" <nospammm@no__spam.com>
wrote:

>> Guess you can't afford an education or "L" lenses, given the quality
>> of your response.
>
>Im probably more rich and more educated than you, english is not my
>language, thats it.
>
>You think that post was for you ? You cant afford L lenses ? Just get a
>point & shoot then.

That's what I've done, Chuckie. Bought "L" lenses but in this case
there doesn't appear to be an choice.

You really need to work on that English as a second language. I hear
they have evening classes that can help. But it appear nothing can be
done for the thought processes behind it regardless of the language.


*****************************************************

"Vietnam is what we had instead of happy childhoods."

Tim Page in
"Dispatches"
by Michael Herr
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:53:41 AM

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

John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:

> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
> rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
> the glass I can use with future technology.

If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't buy
it.

> It maybe "purty darn
> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?

At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:57:13 AM

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

Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
25009C.20395804032005@corp-radius.supernews.com:

> - Some blur is a DOF problem but there's nasty purple fringing.

You've got a bad copy if you're experiencing significant CA with the 10-22.

Take it back, or take it to a service center.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 11:49:26 AM

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

Hi,
Does anyone know if the EW-83 hood from the old 20-35 will fit the new
10-22? Canon USA say it will not (Different thread) they say an EW-83E is
required. Other posts say different.
Thanks
"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.
>
> Any suggestions? How good it This lens?
>
>
> **********************************************************
>
> "Daddy Daddy. It was just like you said
> Now that the living outnumber the dead.
> Where I come from it's a long thin thread
> Across an ocean. Down a river of red.
> Now that the living outnumber the dead. I'm one of many."
>
> "Speak My Language"
> Laurie Anderson from
> "Bright Red"
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 12:52:36 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I would rather put money in to
> the glass I can use with future technology. It maybe "purty darn
> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?

You need both. The 17-40's a good general purpose lens, but it doesn't go
very wide. The 10-20 also focuses a lot closer, so there are silly things to
be done with the 10-22 that you won't be able to do with the 17-40 on a
full-frame camera.

IMHO, the APS-C sensor size is here to stay even if somewhat affordable
full-frame cameras appear, so the 10-22 will be ebayable any time in the
next 5 years and the cost of ownership will not be excessive.

The Sigma 12-24 is a real clunker, whereas the 10-22 is tiny and light and a
joy to use.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 12:57:55 PM

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

In article <Xns961013E163D2Dericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246>,
Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
> 25009C.20395804032005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
>
> > - Some blur is a DOF problem but there's nasty purple fringing.
>
> You've got a bad copy if you're experiencing significant CA with the 10-22.
>
> Take it back, or take it to a service center.

It does seem to be worse than other photos I've seen. I'll see if I can
match the conditions of some online photos then compare them.
Unfortunately, it's hard to find 10-22mm online photos that haven't been
downsampled for web viewing.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:33:23 PM

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

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> In article <Xns961013E163D2Dericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246>,
> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
>> 25009C.20395804032005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
>>
>>> - Some blur is a DOF problem but there's nasty purple fringing.
>>
>> You've got a bad copy if you're experiencing significant CA with the
>> 10-22.
>>
>> Take it back, or take it to a service center.
>
> It does seem to be worse than other photos I've seen. I'll see if I
> can match the conditions of some online photos then compare them.
> Unfortunately, it's hard to find 10-22mm online photos that haven't
> been downsampled for web viewing.

1.5 MB full-size untouched save-for-Web at PS quality 60

1/125, f5.6, 10 mm Canon 10-22 lens

http://www.fototime.com/3F4988C09564F76/orig.jpg


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 3:37:10 PM

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

Frank ess wrote:
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>> In article <Xns961013E163D2Dericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246>,
>> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
>>> 25009C.20395804032005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
>>>
>>>> - Some blur is a DOF problem but there's nasty purple fringing.
>>>
>>> You've got a bad copy if you're experiencing significant CA with the
>>> 10-22.
>>>
>>> Take it back, or take it to a service center.
>>
>> It does seem to be worse than other photos I've seen. I'll see if I
>> can match the conditions of some online photos then compare them.
>> Unfortunately, it's hard to find 10-22mm online photos that haven't
>> been downsampled for web viewing.
>
> 1.5 MB full-size untouched save-for-Web at PS quality 60
>
> 1/125, f5.6, 10 mm Canon 10-22 lens
>
> http://www.fototime.com/3F4988C09564F76/orig.jpg

This album has two added full-size images, last two in order.
http://www.fototime.com/inv/1A13AFE3010879D 10-22 Canon album

If you prefer not to see the album, they are:
http://www.fototime.com/2287AA463D23F6B/orig.jpg
~1MB full-size Jag & A-H, 1/125, f/14 untouched save-for-Web at PS
quality 60

http://www.fototime.com/741106345F1BEC9/orig.jpg
~ 1.1 MB SuperBird 1/125, f/8 untouched save-for-Web at PS quality 60


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 3:50:07 PM

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

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:53:41 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:
>
>> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
>> rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
>> the glass I can use with future technology.
>
>If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't buy
>it.
>
>> It maybe "purty darn
>> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?
>
>At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.

Duh? I would expect it to be as the 17-40 doesn't have 10mm's. Is it
as good at 20 as the 17-40L is at 20?


*******************************************************

"The world is a book, and those who do not travel,
read only a page."

Saint Augustine (354 - 430)
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 4:12:42 PM

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

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> don't see much choice here.
>

The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 4:59:02 PM

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

Joe Smith wrote:
> Hi,
> Does anyone know if the EW-83 hood from the old 20-35 will fit the new
> 10-22? Canon USA say it will not (Different thread) they say an
> EW-83E is required. Other posts say different.
> Thanks

I don't know, but I would think you would get vignette problems.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 5:06:58 PM

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

In message <ohej21t7526fqmb37htb9t64ejdriodqvq@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>What L lense has IS at 17mm?
>
>None. I think we have a troll here.

The temptation is strong for me to get this lens. 17mm with IS would
probably allow me to hand-hold at 1/2 second, with consistent results.

I also want the 10-22, but I am still fighting the fear of not using
EF-S bodies regularly in the future.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 8:32:37 PM

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

> You really need to work on that English as a second language. I hear
> they have evening classes that can help. But it appear nothing can be
> done for the thought processes behind it regardless of the language.

"Chuck" needs to work on his attitude. He's probably a coward who would
often like to confront others but knows he'd get his ass kicked.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 9:21:08 PM

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

> The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
> Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
> like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.

You should back up strong statements with additional information. My 17-85
is just fine (Do you own one?). Mostly I read and hear that others are also
pleased. Perfect, no way ... but all practical engineering solutions are
compromises. Now, please tell us WHY this lens is so awful. Post something
that is supportable/documented. Do you own this lens? Can you post some
test shots? Can you post anything that is believable?
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:56:54 PM

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

In article <0vOdnYlhiYPihbffRVn-qw@giganews.com>,
"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> Frank ess wrote:
> > Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
> >> In article <Xns961013E163D2Dericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246>,
> >> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri@dslextreme.com> wrote in news:mcmurtri-
> >>> 25009C.20395804032005@corp-radius.supernews.com:
> >>>
> >>>> - Some blur is a DOF problem but there's nasty purple fringing.
> >>>
> >>> You've got a bad copy if you're experiencing significant CA with the
> >>> 10-22.
> >>>
> >>> Take it back, or take it to a service center.
> >>
> >> It does seem to be worse than other photos I've seen. I'll see if I
> >> can match the conditions of some online photos then compare them.
> >> Unfortunately, it's hard to find 10-22mm online photos that haven't
> >> been downsampled for web viewing.
> >
> > 1.5 MB full-size untouched save-for-Web at PS quality 60
> >
> > 1/125, f5.6, 10 mm Canon 10-22 lens
> >
> > http://www.fototime.com/3F4988C09564F76/orig.jpg

Hmmm... Has CA too. Edges are blurry but that appears to be primarily a
DOF problem.


> This album has two added full-size images, last two in order.
> http://www.fototime.com/inv/1A13AFE3010879D 10-22 Canon album
>
> If you prefer not to see the album, they are:
> http://www.fototime.com/2287AA463D23F6B/orig.jpg
> ~1MB full-size Jag & A-H, 1/125, f/14 untouched save-for-Web at PS
> quality 60
>
> http://www.fototime.com/741106345F1BEC9/orig.jpg
> ~ 1.1 MB SuperBird 1/125, f/8 untouched save-for-Web at PS quality 60

Blurry only at the very extreme edges, CA is nothing more than a slight
tint two pixels wide.

It looks like I might have a less than perfect lens. I'll experiment to
see under what conditions it works well and what conditions it doesn't.
I think mine has problems only at a certain focal distance.

Thanks Eric and Frank for the sample photos.
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 12:32:32 AM

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

MitchAlsup@aol.com wrote:
>"How good it This lens? "

>Mine is just dandy, sharpness like my 24-70 F/2.8 L USM, build quality
>like my 70-200 F/4. I really wanted to dislike this lens for not being
>an L, but its wideness, sharpness and contrast won over my heart.

And this paragon of a lens is what?

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 12:34:09 AM

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

Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
>news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:

>> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
>> rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
>> the glass I can use with future technology.

>If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't buy
>it.

>> It maybe "purty darn
>> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?

>At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.

May I assume that at 40 the 17-40L is much better
than the 10-22?

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:11:59 AM

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

Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in news:D 0d8kh$a1k$5@reader1.panix.com:

> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:
>
>>> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
>>> rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
>>> the glass I can use with future technology.
>
>>If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't buy
>>it.
>
>>> It maybe "purty darn
>>> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?
>
>>At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.
>
> May I assume that at 40 the 17-40L is much better
> than the 10-22?

You may indeed, Paul. Hopefully Mr. Stovall got the point as well.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:15:13 AM

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

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:11:59 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in news:D 0d8kh$a1k$5@reader1.panix.com:
>
>> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
>>>> rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
>>>> the glass I can use with future technology.
>>
>>>If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't buy
>>>it.
>>
>>>> It maybe "purty darn
>>>> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?
>>
>>>At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.
>>
>> May I assume that at 40 the 17-40L is much better
>> than the 10-22?
>
>You may indeed, Paul. Hopefully Mr. Stovall got the point as well.

I did get the point...


**********************************************************

"The characteristic act of men at war is not dying,
it is killing. For politicians, military strategists
and many historians, war may be about the conquest of
territory or the struggle to recover a sense of national
honour but for the man on active service warfare is
concerned with the lawful killing of other people"

"An Intimate History of Killing"
Joanna Bourke - 1999
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 6:19:09 PM

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

John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:v77n21lmrp1vjtcfa5vh9mje47bvu6oicd@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 00:11:59 GMT, Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
>>news:D 0d8kh$a1k$5@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>>> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and
>>>>> would rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put
>>>>> money in to the glass I can use with future technology.
>>>
>>>>If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't
>>>>buy it.
>>>
>>>>> It maybe "purty darn
>>>>> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?
>>>
>>>>At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.
>>>
>>> May I assume that at 40 the 17-40L is much better
>>> than the 10-22?
>>
>>You may indeed, Paul. Hopefully Mr. Stovall got the point as well.
>
> I did get the point...

Good.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 6:27:59 AM

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

Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in news:D 0d8kh$a1k$5@reader1.panix.com:

>> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and would
>>>> rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put money in to
>>>> the glass I can use with future technology.
>>
>>>If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't buy
>>>it.
>>
>>>> It maybe "purty darn
>>>> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?
>>
>>>At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.
>>
>> May I assume that at 40 the 17-40L is much better
>> than the 10-22?

>You may indeed, Paul. Hopefully Mr. Stovall got the point as well.

I hope so. I learn tons from this newsgroup and am
frequently on the lookout for folks' experiences.
The posting above caused a double take... ;-)

---- Paul J. Gans
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 9:45:56 AM

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

Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
news:D 0j63u$297$4@reader1.panix.com:

> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Paul J Gans <gans@panix.com> wrote in
>>news:D 0d8kh$a1k$5@reader1.panix.com:
>
>>> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in
>>>>news:2elh2197ldsbf00rf81f9eenjr30jggrp5@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>> I expect in a few years to move to a full frame sensor Canon and
>>>>> would rather not be stuck with EF-S lenses. I would rather put
>>>>> money in to the glass I can use with future technology.
>>>
>>>>If you won't get your money out of the glass "in a few years," don't
>>>>buy it.
>>>
>>>>> It maybe "purty darn
>>>>> good" but is as good as say the 17-40 L?
>>>
>>>>At 10mm, the 10-22 is a LOT better than the 17-40L.
>>>
>>> May I assume that at 40 the 17-40L is much better
>>> than the 10-22?
>
>>You may indeed, Paul. Hopefully Mr. Stovall got the point as well.
>
> I hope so. I learn tons from this newsgroup and am
> frequently on the lookout for folks' experiences.
> The posting above caused a double take... ;-)

Heh.

My whole point is that the 10-22 is currently the only game in town at
the low focal lengths, other than some oddities like the Peleng 8mm fish
(all of which produce godawfully distorted images).

It is, in fact, a surprisingly good lens, and the distortion is (even
more surprisingly) minimized very well indeed. On par with more standard
lenses, especially L glass, at the higher focal lengths? Of course not.
But on a 1.6 crop factor body, 10mm or so is awfully useful, and the
comparison with a 17mm lens is absurd.

That being said, I'm hoping the upcoming Sigma 10-22 is in the same
league in everything but price. Happy as I am with the 10-22, $800USD
still seems a bit steep.

It's a partial answer to the EF-S dilemna, too, since it's alleged to
function on larger sensors.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:27:41 PM

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

"Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>> don't see much choice here.
>>
>
> The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
> Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
> like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
>

Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
touch.

The 10-22mm is probably not that sharp from the MTF data but what else is
there for 10mm? If you want that AoV you have to for it (or the Sigma lens
with its exposed front element and every bit of dust or rain messing up
whatever performance is there to start with).

Very short lenses will always have limited sharpness, it's the downside of
the APS-C format and why I will mostly stay with EF lenses so the path to
full frame 35mm sensor is open.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 2:34:09 AM

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

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:422e01a4$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> >> don't see much choice here.
> >>
> >
> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
> >
>
> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
> touch.
>
> The 10-22mm is probably not that sharp from the MTF data but what else is
> there for 10mm? If you want that AoV you have to for it (or the Sigma lens
> with its exposed front element and every bit of dust or rain messing up
> whatever performance is there to start with).
>
> Very short lenses will always have limited sharpness, it's the downside of
> the APS-C format and why I will mostly stay with EF lenses so the path to
> full frame 35mm sensor is open.
>
>

Can't seem to find charts for the 17-85 on either the us or uk websites. Link
please?
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:34:07 PM

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

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:RDqXd.54250$s16.18567@trndny02...
>
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:422e01a4$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>> >> don't see much choice here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
>> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
>> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
>> >
>>
>> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
>> touch.
>>
>> The 10-22mm is probably not that sharp from the MTF data but what else is
>> there for 10mm? If you want that AoV you have to for it (or the Sigma
>> lens
>> with its exposed front element and every bit of dust or rain messing up
>> whatever performance is there to start with).
>>
>> Very short lenses will always have limited sharpness, it's the downside
>> of
>> the APS-C format and why I will mostly stay with EF lenses so the path to
>> full frame 35mm sensor is open.
>>
>>
>
> Can't seem to find charts for the 17-85 on either the us or uk websites.
> Link
> please?
>

Hi Sam

Yes I had to look hard for this and some others, it's on the japanese site
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...

Also you might be amused to take a look at my musings on lenses and MTF
charts at
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection...
you will see I have a lot of time when I forced to sit at a PC rather than
go take picture - such is life.

Lester
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 5:12:07 PM

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

Lester Wareham wrote:
>
> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> >> don't see much choice here.
> >>
> >
> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
> >
>
> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
> touch.

Charts are one thing, but experience is another. I have both the
micro-motor 18-55 and the 17-85. The 18-55 is reasonable optically, but
is not as sharp as the 17-85 by quite a margin. Also, the build of the
18-55 is execrable, the focusing is by rotating the front element, and
there is so much slack in the fit of the barrels that the image
literally jumps in the finder when focusing. The USM 17-85, on the
other hand, is built reasonably well, a solid-feeling lens, and the
sharpness is not too bad. I'll have to get onto a photo site soon, and
post some images.

Colin
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 5:12:08 PM

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

Colin D wrote:
>
> Lester Wareham wrote:
>
>>"Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
>>news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>>>>EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>>>>don't see much choice here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
>>>Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
>>>like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
>>>
>>
>>Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
>>touch.
>
>
> Charts are one thing, but experience is another. I have both the
> micro-motor 18-55 and the 17-85. The 18-55 is reasonable optically, but
> is not as sharp as the 17-85 by quite a margin. Also, the build of the
> 18-55 is execrable, the focusing is by rotating the front element, and
> there is so much slack in the fit of the barrels that the image
> literally jumps in the finder when focusing. The USM 17-85, on the
> other hand, is built reasonably well, a solid-feeling lens, and the
> sharpness is not too bad. I'll have to get onto a photo site soon, and
> post some images.
>
> Colin

I have a bunch done with the 17-85 at http://www.flickr.com/photos/chipgallo

Chip Gallo
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 5:12:08 PM

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

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:422E4D67.31E5B99C@killspam.127.0.0.1...
>
>
> Lester Wareham wrote:
>>
>> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>> >> don't see much choice here.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
>> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
>> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
>> >
>>
>> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
>> touch.
>
> Charts are one thing, but experience is another. I have both the
> micro-motor 18-55 and the 17-85. The 18-55 is reasonable optically, but
> is not as sharp as the 17-85 by quite a margin. Also, the build of the
> 18-55 is execrable, the focusing is by rotating the front element, and
> there is so much slack in the fit of the barrels that the image
> literally jumps in the finder when focusing. The USM 17-85, on the
> other hand, is built reasonably well, a solid-feeling lens, and the
> sharpness is not too bad. I'll have to get onto a photo site soon, and
> post some images.
>
> Colin

I agree with you real life is different from theory, which is what the Canon
charts are, so the construction tolerances etc will take a toll.

The little 18-55 kit lens may loose out more than the 17-85 because of its
construction in this respect. Quite apart from the feel of the thing.

I would be interested to see your posting.


Lester
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 5:12:09 PM

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

"Chip Gallo" <cgallo@nospamcitlink.net> wrote in message
news:isDXd.707$IK1.117@news02.roc.ny...
> Colin D wrote:
>>
>> Lester Wareham wrote:
>>
>>>"Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>>>>>EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>>>>>don't see much choice here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
>>>>Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
>>>>like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
>>>touch.
>>
>>
>> Charts are one thing, but experience is another. I have both the
>> micro-motor 18-55 and the 17-85. The 18-55 is reasonable optically, but
>> is not as sharp as the 17-85 by quite a margin. Also, the build of the
>> 18-55 is execrable, the focusing is by rotating the front element, and
>> there is so much slack in the fit of the barrels that the image
>> literally jumps in the finder when focusing. The USM 17-85, on the
>> other hand, is built reasonably well, a solid-feeling lens, and the
>> sharpness is not too bad. I'll have to get onto a photo site soon, and
>> post some images.
>>
>> Colin
>
> I have a bunch done with the 17-85 at
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/chipgallo
>
> Chip Gallo

Hi Chip

They look OK I must say, but the largest size is only 900X600 so the
sharpness is difficult to judge.

I don't want to diss people kit and start wars, I am just commenting on
Canon's own data relative to some of there other lenses.

I guess the thing to remember is that most lenses are quite good these days,
but some are better than others. The 17-85 is probably a good walk around
lens where there is plenty of light, but I would like to have something
sharper available for A3+ prints.

Lester
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:24:55 PM

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

Lester Wareham wrote:
> "Chip Gallo" <cgallo@nospamcitlink.net> wrote in message
> news:isDXd.707$IK1.117@news02.roc.ny...
>
>>Colin D wrote:
>>
>>>Lester Wareham wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>>>>>>EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
>>>>>>don't see much choice here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
>>>>>Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
>>>>>like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
>>>>touch.
>>>
>>>
>>>Charts are one thing, but experience is another. I have both the
>>>micro-motor 18-55 and the 17-85. The 18-55 is reasonable optically, but
>>>is not as sharp as the 17-85 by quite a margin. Also, the build of the
>>>18-55 is execrable, the focusing is by rotating the front element, and
>>>there is so much slack in the fit of the barrels that the image
>>>literally jumps in the finder when focusing. The USM 17-85, on the
>>>other hand, is built reasonably well, a solid-feeling lens, and the
>>>sharpness is not too bad. I'll have to get onto a photo site soon, and
>>>post some images.
>>>
>>>Colin
>>
>>I have a bunch done with the 17-85 at
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/chipgallo
>>
>>Chip Gallo
>
>
> Hi Chip
>
> They look OK I must say, but the largest size is only 900X600 so the
> sharpness is difficult to judge.
>
> I don't want to diss people kit and start wars, I am just commenting on
> Canon's own data relative to some of there other lenses.
>
> I guess the thing to remember is that most lenses are quite good these days,
> but some are better than others. The 17-85 is probably a good walk around
> lens where there is plenty of light, but I would like to have something
> sharper available for A3+ prints.
>
> Lester
>
>
Lester -- because of the image stabilization, I have gotten some pretty
good low light shots (when everyone cooperated by not waving their arms
around). I am happy with it as a $600 lens.

Chip
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:00:54 AM

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

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:422f54a5$0$32604$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:RDqXd.54250$s16.18567@trndny02...
> >
> > "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:422e01a4$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> >
> >> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> >> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> >> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> >> >> don't see much choice here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
> >> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
> >> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
> >> touch.
> >>
> >> The 10-22mm is probably not that sharp from the MTF data but what else is
> >> there for 10mm? If you want that AoV you have to for it (or the Sigma
> >> lens
> >> with its exposed front element and every bit of dust or rain messing up
> >> whatever performance is there to start with).
> >>
> >> Very short lenses will always have limited sharpness, it's the downside
> >> of
> >> the APS-C format and why I will mostly stay with EF lenses so the path to
> >> full frame 35mm sensor is open.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Can't seem to find charts for the 17-85 on either the us or uk websites.
> > Link
> > please?
> >
>
> Hi Sam
>
> Yes I had to look hard for this and some others, it's on the japanese site
> http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...
>
> Also you might be amused to take a look at my musings on lenses and MTF
> charts at
>
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection...
> you will see I have a lot of time when I forced to sit at a PC rather than
> go take picture - such is life.
>
> Lester
>
>

But I'm confused how this:
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:08:57 AM

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

"Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
news:422f54a5$0$32604$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:RDqXd.54250$s16.18567@trndny02...
> >
> > "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:422e01a4$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> >
> >> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> >> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> >> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> >> >> don't see much choice here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
> >> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
> >> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
> >> touch.
> >>
> >> The 10-22mm is probably not that sharp from the MTF data but what else is
> >> there for 10mm? If you want that AoV you have to for it (or the Sigma
> >> lens
> >> with its exposed front element and every bit of dust or rain messing up
> >> whatever performance is there to start with).
> >>
> >> Very short lenses will always have limited sharpness, it's the downside
> >> of
> >> the APS-C format and why I will mostly stay with EF lenses so the path to
> >> full frame 35mm sensor is open.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Can't seem to find charts for the 17-85 on either the us or uk websites.
> > Link
> > please?
> >
>
> Hi Sam
>
> Yes I had to look hard for this and some others, it's on the japanese site
> http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...
>
> Also you might be amused to take a look at my musings on lenses and MTF
> charts at
>
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection...
> you will see I have a lot of time when I forced to sit at a PC rather than
> go take picture - such is life.
>
> Lester
>
>

[sorry, the message got away from me...]

anyway, I'm confused how this:
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...

looks better than this:
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s18_...

[I think that's what you were saying, no?]
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:10:29 AM

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

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:J6NXd.50686$ya6.37786@trndny01...
>
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:422f54a5$0$32604$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >
> > "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:RDqXd.54250$s16.18567@trndny02...
> > >
> > > "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:422e01a4$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > >>
> > >> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > >> >
> > >> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
> > >> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
> > >> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses but
> > >> >> don't see much choice here.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
> > >> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
> > >> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm into
> > >> touch.
> > >>
> > >> The 10-22mm is probably not that sharp from the MTF data but what else is
> > >> there for 10mm? If you want that AoV you have to for it (or the Sigma
> > >> lens
> > >> with its exposed front element and every bit of dust or rain messing up
> > >> whatever performance is there to start with).
> > >>
> > >> Very short lenses will always have limited sharpness, it's the downside
> > >> of
> > >> the APS-C format and why I will mostly stay with EF lenses so the path to
> > >> full frame 35mm sensor is open.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Can't seem to find charts for the 17-85 on either the us or uk websites.
> > > Link
> > > please?
> > >
> >
> > Hi Sam
> >
> > Yes I had to look hard for this and some others, it's on the japanese site
> > http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...
> >
> > Also you might be amused to take a look at my musings on lenses and MTF
> > charts at
> >
>
http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection...
> > you will see I have a lot of time when I forced to sit at a PC rather than
> > go take picture - such is life.
> >
> > Lester
> >
> >
>
> [sorry, the message got away from me...]
>
> anyway, I'm confused how this:
> http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...
>
> looks better than this:
> http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s18_...
>
> [I think that's what you were saying, no?]
>
>
>

sorry, wrong way round. I got the links reversed. I think you were saying the
18-55 looks better than the 17-85, yes?
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:07:23 PM

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

"SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:J6NXd.50686$ya6.37786@trndny01...
>
> "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:422f54a5$0$32604$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "SamSez" <samtheman@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:RDqXd.54250$s16.18567@trndny02...
>> >
>> > "Lester Wareham" <nospam@please.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:422e01a4$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >> "Dutch Flyer" <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:D BmWd.760$c72.89@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:6cah21pbl14clnabni6i720r838sj6ontl@4ax.com...
>> >> >> It' looks like the only real wide angle option for the 20D is the
>> >> >> EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. I've tried to avoid the EF-S lenses
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> don't see much choice here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The EF-S 10-22mm is a great lens. My first copy was a keeper.
>> >> > Some people here are telling you to buy the 17-85EF-S. If you
>> >> > like good optics, for your own good, don't buy it.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Going by the Canon MTF data the 18-55mm kit lens kicks the 17-85mm
>> >> into
>> >> touch.
>> >>
>> >> The 10-22mm is probably not that sharp from the MTF data but what else
>> >> is
>> >> there for 10mm? If you want that AoV you have to for it (or the Sigma
>> >> lens
>> >> with its exposed front element and every bit of dust or rain messing
>> >> up
>> >> whatever performance is there to start with).
>> >>
>> >> Very short lenses will always have limited sharpness, it's the
>> >> downside
>> >> of
>> >> the APS-C format and why I will mostly stay with EF lenses so the path
>> >> to
>> >> full frame 35mm sensor is open.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Can't seem to find charts for the 17-85 on either the us or uk
>> > websites.
>> > Link
>> > please?
>> >
>>
>> Hi Sam
>>
>> Yes I had to look hard for this and some others, it's on the japanese
>> site
>> http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...
>>
>> Also you might be amused to take a look at my musings on lenses and MTF
>> charts at
>>
> http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/lensselection...
>> you will see I have a lot of time when I forced to sit at a PC rather
>> than
>> go take picture - such is life.
>>
>> Lester
>>
>>
>
> [sorry, the message got away from me...]
>
> anyway, I'm confused how this:
> http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s17_...
>
> looks better than this:
> http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/ef/catalog/category/ef_s18_...
>
> [I think that's what you were saying, no?]
>
>

No other way around Sam.

Take a look at my web, it's easier to see at I plot two lenses on one graph.

Cheers

Lester
!