Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon 10-22mm Lens

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 28, 2005 9:18:07 PM

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

I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although over-priced.

Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? Is it a good lens despite the
price?

More about : canon 22mm lens

Anonymous
April 28, 2005 9:18:23 PM

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

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:9rednbyaOPsoluzfRVnyhA@pipex.net:

> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> over-priced.

Compared to what?
April 28, 2005 10:30:24 PM

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

In article <Xns96467D35D7684ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.251>,
Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:9rednbyaOPsoluzfRVnyhA@pipex.net:
>
>> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
>> over-priced.
>
>Compared to what?
>

How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ?
Related resources
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 10:30:25 PM

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

james wrote:
> In article <Xns96467D35D7684ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.251>,
> Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:9rednbyaOPsoluzfRVnyhA@pipex.net:
>>
>>> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
>>> over-priced.
>>
>> Compared to what?
>>
>
> How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ?

They are both priced perfectly, if you want to get out there in the
10-11mm range.

When Tamron is in distribution and results displayed, that may change.

--
Frank ess
April 28, 2005 11:31:01 PM

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

In article <SeWdnVrm5dHxqezfRVn-gQ@giganews.com>,
Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>> How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ?
>
>They are both priced perfectly, if you want to get out there in the
>10-11mm range.

The thing is, "out there" isn't really that far when we're talking 1.6:1
cameras. This has been a real shock to me. Focal lengths that were
exotic when I was doing 35mm film, are really just moderate wide angle
now. I woulnd never have considered a 18mm lens as anything but a
novelty lens before, whereas I used a 24mm f2.8 more than any other
lens.
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 11:31:02 PM

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

james wrote:
> In article <SeWdnVrm5dHxqezfRVn-gQ@giganews.com>,
> Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>>> How about, compared to the not-yet-available Tamron 11-18 f4.5 ?
>>
>> They are both priced perfectly, if you want to get out there in the
>> 10-11mm range.
>
> The thing is, "out there" isn't really that far when we're talking
> 1.6:1 cameras. This has been a real shock to me. Focal lengths
> that
> were exotic when I was doing 35mm film, are really just moderate
> wide
> angle now. I woulnd never have considered a 18mm lens as anything
> but a novelty lens before, whereas I used a 24mm f2.8 more than any
> other lens.

Very interesting red herring.

The thing was, overpriced-compared-to-what.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
April 28, 2005 11:39:23 PM

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:18:07 +0100, Russell wrote:

> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> over-priced.

It is a good sharp lens with good contrast. Distortion is quite low given
its ultrawide range. Some users even compared it with L-class lenses.


--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com
April 29, 2005 12:14:36 AM

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

In article <CNmdneNXT_zS3ezfRVn-vA@giganews.com>,
Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>
>Very interesting red herring.
>
>The thing was, overpriced-compared-to-what.

In my case, for the budget that has now shrunk to approximately $35.11.
:-) Lenses will have to wait.


I am very happy with a Tamron zoom lens that I bought, whereas I would
not have been able to afford anything more expensive.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 3:17:00 AM

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

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:39:23 GMT, Gautam Majumdar
<gmajumdar@XSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:18:07 +0100, Russell wrote:
>
>> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
>> over-priced.
>
>It is a good sharp lens with good contrast. Distortion is quite low given
>its ultrawide range. Some users even compared it with L-class lenses.
>

Where did they do that and what were they smoking at the time?


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

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
April 29, 2005 4:33:17 AM

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

Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L. They are
around the same price, however, the 10-22 is not an 'L' lens.

It doesn't even come with a lens hood or case for the money, not exactly a
bargain hey.




"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96467D35D7684ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.251...
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:9rednbyaOPsoluzfRVnyhA@pipex.net:
>
> > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> > over-priced.
>
> Compared to what?
>
April 29, 2005 5:02:08 AM

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

Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L. They are
around the same price, however, the 10-22 is not an 'L' lens.

It doesn't even come with a lens hood or case for the money, not exactly a
bargain hey.


"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96467D35D7684ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.251...
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:9rednbyaOPsoluzfRVnyhA@pipex.net:
>
> > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> > over-priced.
>
> Compared to what?
>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 5:07:10 AM

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

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:96udnVU3wPMu7OzfRVnytw@pipex.net:

> Compared to a 35mm equivalent lens such as the EF 17-40mm F4L.

<shrug> And cheap compared to a 21mm Distagon for medium format.

Neither will give you a nice wide angle on a 1.6 crop factor body, so
comparing them is sort of silly.

The closest thing currently available is the Sigma 12-24, and it's not a
whole lot cheaper, and you give up a surprising amount of field on the wide
end, and an f-stop of speed.

<snip>
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 8:37:19 AM

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

Russell wrote:
> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although over-priced.
>
> Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? Is it a good lens despite the
> price?

I have one, and it's fine, though as you state it is overpriced. Look
for a Dell 15% off sale, combined with a $ off coupon, and you can get
it for around $600. Keep checking techbargains.com for coupons.
Unfortunately, Dell doesn't list that lens at this time, but I bought
one from them.
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 1:08:54 PM

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

Hi,
Check out the Tokina 12-24. Killer value for the money (450 $ or so). Scored
'Super' in German Fotomagazine's test (way above Canon).

Arttu

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5mr27114eb6d1cdqn6skb41cogoodl1g9u@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:39:23 GMT, Gautam Majumdar
> <gmajumdar@XSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:18:07 +0100, Russell wrote:
> >
> >> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> >> over-priced.
> >
> >It is a good sharp lens with good contrast. Distortion is quite low given
> >its ultrawide range. Some users even compared it with L-class lenses.
> >
>
> Where did they do that and what were they smoking at the time?
>
>
> *********************************************************
>
> "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
> my testimony. The events I have recorded should
> not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
> -James Nachtwey-
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:00:51 PM

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:08:54 GMT, "Arttu" <no.email.address@test.com>
wrote:

>Hi,
>Check out the Tokina 12-24. Killer value for the money (450 $ or so). Scored
>'Super' in German Fotomagazine's test (way above Canon).

Why should I? I'm sure is it's not the build quality of a Canon L.


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

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
April 30, 2005 4:36:05 AM

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

Russell wrote:

> I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> over-priced.
>


Wow and people say the olympus ZD lenses are high! :-)
--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 6:04:52 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Russell wrote:
>
> > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> > over-priced.
>
> Wow and people say the olympus ZD lenses are high! :-)

Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the
price (799 vs. 1799)*. And it can't take filters and doesn't focus as close
(the 10-22 makes a lovely low-mag macro lens). And I hope it's got 20% more
resolution than the Canon lens, because it's working on a 20% (linearly)
smaller frame. (And is it even released yet???)

*:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=detai...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
April 30, 2005 6:04:53 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:


>
> Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the
> price (799 vs. 1799)*.

Oh so on the wide end FOV matters but on the tele end it doesn't? How
convinient... So how much cheaper is the canon 400mm f2.8?
--

Stacey
April 30, 2005 6:04:53 PM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Russell wrote:
>>
>> > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
>> > over-priced.
>>
>> Wow and people say the olympus ZD lenses are high! :-)
>
> Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the
> price (799 vs. 1799)*.

Actually that lens is wider, $1500 real cost, contant aperture, pro weather
sealed glass as opposed to a consumer zoom. Wonder what a "L" quality lens
like this will cost from canon if a consumer version is $800?

I'm sure you don't care but the MTF on this lens is incredible with very
little distortion. Also not sure where you came up with it doesn't focus as
close either? The ZD focuses to 10cm, the canon is 24cm. And if you
bothered to look B&H has them in stock. Lots of samples floating around the
web from this lens, it's amazing but I'm sure you'd find a fault with it
since your a "canon only" kinda guy...

The 11-22 is it's real competition and again is weather sealed pro glass at
the same price or less with rebates and also outperforms it.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 6:04:54 PM

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

In message <3dgo71F6kavvnU2@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice the
>> price (799 vs. 1799)*.
>
>Oh so on the wide end FOV matters but on the tele end it doesn't? How
>convinient... So how much cheaper is the canon 400mm f2.8?

You need to adjust MTF figures to compare the 300mm f2.8 Zuiko to the
400mm f2.8 L. If a 1.6x and a 2x sensor are having resolution limits of
lenses in actual use compared, the lp/mm needs to be multiplied by 1.25
for the 1.6x, or divided by 1.25 for the 2x, which you seem to have
forgotten all about in all of your posts. Also, "flat" MTF is not an
indicator of maximum quality as you have implied in the past. Which
curve would you prefer?:



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

I would prefer the top one, and I could emulate the bottom one in
software with a low-pass filter if I wanted, but having extra
pixel-to-pixel contrast in the center image is generally not a problem,
and is, in fact, quite useful if you are going to use a TC.

Also, don't forget that you have to trim away everything above 13mm from
the center for relevance to 1.6x formats; the Zuiko MTFs are already
trimmed to what is relevant.

You like to bias information as well as anyone else; don't kid yourself.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 8:51:42 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dgo71F6kavvnU2@individual.net...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >
> > Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice
the
> > price (799 vs. 1799)*.
>
> Oh so on the wide end FOV matters but on the tele end it doesn't? How
> convinient... So how much cheaper is the canon 400mm f2.8?

We've been through this before: since the E-1 and E-300 are a full stop
slower* than the 20D, one would be better off financially (and in weight)
with a one stop slower 1.2x longer lens on the 20D. Oly fans love to forget
that the 4/3 is only a 1.2x format factor away from the APS-C sensor
cameras.

Besides, neither you nor I can either afford or lift the Oly tele primes, so
bringing them up is totally bogus.

*: The 20D user gets lower noise images at twice the ISO, so can use a one
stop slower lens.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 9:09:39 PM

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Russell wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have heard that the Canon 10-22mm lens is very good, although
> >> > over-priced.
> >>
> >> Wow and people say the olympus ZD lenses are high! :-)
> >
> > Yep, they do. The equivalent Zuiko lens (7-14/4.0) is well over twice
the
> > price (799 vs. 1799)*.
>
> Actually that lens is wider, $1500 real cost,

Great! It's only US$900 more for the Oly glass. ROFL.

> contant aperture, pro weather sealed glass

Great! A weather sealed lens that one can't put a protective filter on.
Really smart paying US$900 more for the waether sealing. ROFL again.

> I'm sure you don't care but the MTF on this lens is incredible with very
> little distortion.

The 10-22 is seriously amazing. It's as sharp as any lens I own and the
distortion is minimal. I can use a polarizing filter on it and I still have
that US$900 in my pocket. And I can kick up the ISO to get the DOF I want
without getting ridiculous noise.

> Also not sure where you came up with it doesn't focus as
> close either?

http://www.olympusamerica.com/e1/sys_lens_714mm.asp

Which says 0.25m. The 10-22 focus to 4" from the front element. (Maybe that
0.25m from the sensor?)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
!