Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I am looking to increase my range of lenses and need something at the wider end of the range. I have a 300D and was considering the EF-S 10-22mm or one of the no-so-wide fixed length options. Probably a EF 15mm fisheye. I've heard good things about their quality, but I really want to see how the focal length and correction in the lenses affects real pics.
As the kit lens has 18-55mm already I don't see any point in getting 16mm or above. I have tried a Sigma 8mm Fisheye in Jessops, but found that I didn't like the full vignette look. That's why I'm thinking I want to go down to at least 15mm, but possibly 10mm.
Does anyone have comparative shots taken with the wider EF lenses (particularly the 10mm)? I have seen examples from most lenses, but nothing I can compare side by side. They always seem to be shots that make best use of each particular lense but I want to compare between them.
Thanks
Duncan.
The reason that Canon show different shots with their lenses is because the expectation is that in the main you use different glass for different types of shots. I don't know of any site that has taken the same shot with all of Canon's range to illustrate the difference.
I have the 16-35mm L zoom, and also the 15mm fisheye, but am using them on a 1Ds and 1D MkII so the cropping factor is negated or less.
Even with the 1.6x on the 300D the 15mm fisheye will give you (deliberate)marked distortion at the edges - it is not really used for straight shots. Unless you plan to use this as a feature lens then I wouldn't recommend that you spend the 500 on it.
The widest rectilinear lens (intended straight edges) Canon do in an EF mount is the 14mm but it is 1400. If you want wider than the 16-35mm L (About 1100) then the EF-S 10-22mm is your really only choice on a Canon branded lens.
What you will find with the 16-35mm, 14mm, and even the 10-22mm is a much better quality than with the kit lens.
Finally 2mm at the short end makes much more of a difference than 2mm at the long end....you might be surprised at how much extra field of view you get with a 16mm than you do with 18mm.
HTH
Mike
I have the 10-22 EF-S and have no regrets at all. There is distortion at the wide end, but as Mike says, that's why I bought it.
I do have some pics taken with it, but none of them are on this PC (I'm at work) and none of them very good, but if you'd like me to post one tonight, I will. Just don't expect many hearts!!!
If you want me to take several shots of the same subject at different focal lengths I will, but that would probably have to wait until the weekend now.
Tim
For cheeper alternitives, concider the Sigma 15-30 and 12-24 lenses. Have seen good reviews of both.
I would also back what Mike said about 2mm making much more difference at the wide end. I traded my old 19mm lens (which I found just not wide enouph onmy 300D) for a 17mm lens, and found it made a world of difference.
Mattw
Tim - thanks for the link from Michael Reichmann. Whilst taking most things I read on the net with a pinch of salt, he strikes me as someone who bases their opinions on science with the evidence to back it up. I can't use the 10-22 on my 10d but the review of the Sigma made me think twice about going down that road. The 10-22 certainly sounds like a very sound lens. It's also been higly regarded on www.fredmiranda.com
Agree, though the comments from other LL readers below the review do imply that MR simply got a duff Sigma lens.
He certainly did - and the fact that he still saw fit to include the comparison, even after acknowledging that it is not a good copy of the Sigma, does not give credence to the rest of the review that it is supposed to be.
He states quite clearly why he didn't edit the piece - have you seen the volume of work this guy post, it's hardly surprising. If sigma have a quality issue then this article highlights it - he got the lens of the shelf like anyone else. Sure you can take it back if you're not happy but what if it's 5% of perfect or 3% or 1% how do you know?
If he wants to go for volume of work rather than quality of it that's his business.
However, IMO posting a side-by-side comparison with a poor example of a lens doen't give credence to either his review or even the technique used with respect to the particular lens he was reviewing.
I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one as I believe the very fact he's left the article as is gives it credence! And besides it's a review of the Canon lens not the Sigma. The Update on the bottom of the article also adds to the credibility IMO.
Seems fair to me. If I buy a Sigma, I now know that they can be anything from great to abysmal. As such I find it more honest than a review that had to be rewritten when he eventually found a good lens.
Well, if you think that a review that includes a comparison with a poor lens - thereby implying that the lens actually being reviewed might be better than it may really be - that's your choice.
There would be no need to rewrite the review - only remove the misleading comparison with the lens that he wasn't reviewing.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top