Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking 4 some wide angle for my 300D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:55:55 PM

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

Canon 10-22 seams to me a bit overpriced. I read some reviews of Tokina
12-24 and unfortunatelly found only a little information about the new Sigma
10-20. I'm shooting mostly architecture and landscape, often stitching a
cople of photos for panorama effect. 18mm of the kit lens is just not wide
enough to me and too round near 18mm. Not sure if 12mm would do, although I
read a lot of positive reviews of this lens. Could someone who's shooting
this type of photos give me some advice? Enyone got the Sigma 10-20? How is
it doing in wide?
yaro

More about : wide angle 300d

Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:55:56 PM

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

yAro wrote:
> Canon 10-22 seams to me a bit overpriced. I read some reviews of
> Tokina 12-24 and unfortunatelly found only a little information about
> the new Sigma 10-20. I'm shooting mostly architecture and landscape,
> often stitching a cople of photos for panorama effect. 18mm of the
> kit lens is just not wide enough to me and too round near 18mm. Not
> sure if 12mm would do, although I read a lot of positive reviews of
> this lens. Could someone who's shooting this type of photos give me
> some advice? Enyone got the Sigma 10-20? How is it doing in wide?
> yaro


I chose to pay the price for the 10-22 and was very happy I did. I
guess you get what you pay for. I suspect there is not that much demand for
lenses in that range right now that someone is going to go to the trouble of
designing and producing a really good quality lens that can be sold for a
discount (high volume) price.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 3:55:56 PM

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

>Canon 10-22 seams to me a bit overpriced.

OK, for other vendor lenses you pay less and get either a) more weight
to carry b) slower max aperture lens or c) both...I did the analyses
before deciding what to buy. For example, Tokina sounds nice at
constant f/4, but it loses 1/2 EV at extrawide end 1/2 EV at notsowide
end compared to the Canon, and while gaining 47% more weight. I
think the Canon is priced fairly in comparison to the alternatives
which have trade-offs for lower price.

Yes, it costs sigificantly more than Canon's own 20-35mm for FF
cameras, but one has to consider the challenge of designing shorter
focal lengths at the same max aperture, and the 10-22 covers 16-35
equiv. so is inherently more difficult to design and makes use of some
exotic glass elements.

Sigma's seem to have a spotty record according to the variety of owner
reports on the web...some not-so-good performing lenses vs. some others
better (in the same model, with owners going back to the store 2-3
times to find a good one). And wide open they seem to be generally
softer. The 10-22 is a bit slower (1/2 to 1 EV) yet weighs 22% more
(you would expect slower lenses to weigh less because of less massive
front element).

--Wilt
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:11:26 PM

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

> I chose to pay the price for the 10-22 and was very happy I did. I
> guess you get what you pay for. I suspect there is not that much demand
for
> lenses in that range right now that someone is going to go to the trouble
of
> designing and producing a really good quality lens that can be sold for a
> discount (high volume) price.
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit
>

But how come that the 10-22 is more expensive than its 35mm equivalent. I
always thought because the dSLR matrixes
are smaller than 35mm film frame it is cheaper to build good quality lenses
for dSLRs. In case of canon EF-S 10-22 I think
they artyficially rised the price without a proper reason or maybe just
because there is not much choice in this range yet.
yaro
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:31:23 PM

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

yAro wrote:
>> I chose to pay the price for the 10-22 and was very happy I did.
>> I guess you get what you pay for. I suspect there is not that much
>> demand for lenses in that range right now that someone is going to
>> go to the trouble of designing and producing a really good quality
>> lens that can be sold for a discount (high volume) price.
>>
>> --
>> Joseph Meehan
>>
>> Dia duit
>>
>
> But how come that the 10-22 is more expensive than its 35mm
> equivalent.

What equivalent? A 10-22 for a non-digital or do you mean something
like a 15- 35mm?

Frankly I find it hard to compare lenses on just one factor. So many
different things go into what I may want into a lens that direct comparisons
are difficult.

For one lens I might be concerned about flat field and sharpness from
center to edge. Another I may prefer softness at the edges and have no
concern about the flatness of the field.

As for why it may be more expensive than you think it should be, I would
guess it is in part more expensive because the expected demand is low so the
unit price will be high. The majority of photographers just don't get it.
They can't see the advantages of a wide angle lens, even though they likely
would benefit greatly if they had one and knew how to use it. What they do
understand is telephoto. So they go on trips and since the mountain is far
away they take out their telephoto and get totally boring images and wonder
why the results don't look like what they remember seeing.

> I always thought because the dSLR matrixes
> are smaller than 35mm film frame it is cheaper to build good quality
> lenses for dSLRs. In case of canon EF-S 10-22 I think
> they artyficially rised the price without a proper reason or maybe
> just because there is not much choice in this range yet.
> yaro

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 5:47:56 PM

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

> But how come that the 10-22 is more expensive than its 35mm equivalent.

Lets terminate that sentance with a '?'

The 10-22 is not more expensive than its 35mm optical equivalent the
16-35 F/2.8!

If you look up the optical design of the 16-35 and compare it to the
10-22 you will see that the optical design is very close to a direct
scaling of the 16-35. It differers in two major respects; the position
of the exit pupil, and the correction of chromatic aberations.

After a certain point, designing really wide angle lenses becomes
harder than scaling up the format, and digital in this regards is more
sensitive than film. A digital sensor want to have the converging light
cone approach the sensor rather perpendicularly. This, in turn,
requires the exit pupil of the lens to be significantly farther away
and embedded in the middle of the lens body, and requires a retro-photo
(reversed telephoto) lens design. The position of the exit pupil and
the mechanical size of the EF bayonette mounting required the drop from
F/2.8 towards F/3.5-4.5.

In addition, nulling out the chromatism of bending light by large
amounts (from the wide angles involved) is harder as the focal length
goes down. Minor adjustments were made to the glass selections, and
some relief was gained by the F/3.5 max aperture (down from F/2.8).
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 8:33:41 PM

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

> Canon 10-22 seams to me a bit overpriced. I read some reviews of Tokina
> 12-24 and unfortunatelly found only a little information about the new
Sigma
> 10-20. I'm shooting mostly architecture and landscape, often stitching a
> cople of photos for panorama effect. 18mm of the kit lens is just not wide
> enough to me and too round near 18mm. Not sure if 12mm would do, although
I
> read a lot of positive reviews of this lens. Could someone who's shooting
> this type of photos give me some advice? Enyone got the Sigma 10-20? How
is
> it doing in wide?

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 12:28:02 AM

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

I noted one problem with canon 10-22 - it's EF-S which means it will not
work with canon 35mm SLR's.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:05:51 AM

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

>
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

> Yes, I've seen that website. It all looks nice, written in commertial
> language but how does it
> work in real life?

Maybe you can find a local store that will let you put it on and try it out.
I'm sure there are reviews someplace.. I'll try to find one.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
August 19, 2005 1:14:09 AM

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

You are paying for W I D E. which has always cost more as it is hard to
produce a wide lens without aberations. Furthermore a wide for an SLR has to
be a retrofocus design making it even more expensive. 30 years ago a 24mm
lens was very expensive - but they have come down to the point where they
are much cheaper (in absolute terms - not even counting inflation) now than
35mms were then because of computer-aided design. Going to half that focal
length is still pretty costly and will stay that way for the time being.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"yAro" <ptica27@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:D e1tt7$8l4$1@news.onet.pl...
> > I chose to pay the price for the 10-22 and was very happy I did. I
> > guess you get what you pay for. I suspect there is not that much demand
> for
> > lenses in that range right now that someone is going to go to the
trouble
> of
> > designing and producing a really good quality lens that can be sold for
a
> > discount (high volume) price.
> >
> > --
> > Joseph Meehan
> >
> > Dia duit
> >
>
> But how come that the 10-22 is more expensive than its 35mm equivalent. I
> always thought because the dSLR matrixes
> are smaller than 35mm film frame it is cheaper to build good quality
lenses
> for dSLRs. In case of canon EF-S 10-22 I think
> they artyficially rised the price without a proper reason or maybe just
> because there is not much choice in this range yet.
> yaro
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:49:57 AM

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

> >
>
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...
>
> > Yes, I've seen that website. It all looks nice, written in commertial
> > language but how does it
> > work in real life?
>
> Maybe you can find a local store that will let you put it on and try it
out.
> I'm sure there are reviews someplace.. I'll try to find one.

Can't find any.. well if I buy one before the end of the year I'll let you
know. ;) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
!