File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, got a question for you in regards to ultra wide lenses. I shoot a Canon eos 400D and am considering purchasing the 10-22 ef-s lens. But I am inquiring about the practicality of such a lens, basically, if I buy this lens, am I rarely going to use it at the wide end, or just use it in the 17-22mm range. So if anyone owns this lens or any of its Nikkor/Sigma/Tamron/Tokina etc counterparts, feel free to comment on the practicality of the lens.

(p.s. I already own the canon 17-85 so should I even consider buying lens?)

tl:dr is the Canon 10-22 lens a practical buy?

inb4 gear thread, cancer, etc.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot G6Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2004:11:04 14:57:07Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/8.0Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias1/3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.09 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width480Image Height640RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
For my use no. It sucked ass. These are the kind of questions you should be able to answer yourself before buying.
>> sage Anonymous
How the fuck are we supposed to know how you will use it?
>> Anonymous
>>222745am I rarely going to use it at the wide end, or just use it in the 17-22mm range

lolwuuuuuut

17-22 is already covered by your 17-85

if you use your 17-85 and always go "MUST GO WIDER DEERRRRRRRRR" then you want the 10-22

if not, no

lolwut
>> AnonyBob !!bHK6FUTAyi2
I have the 17-55 f/2.8 and i was thinking along the same lines for my next purchase.. the current lense I have is great, but I do not plan on buying any more ef-s lens'

I've decided that I will be getting a telephoto as my next lens though.

I guess it would depend how much more of a wider angle you currently feel you need. Do you shoot alot of wide landscapes?
>> Anonymous
lol @ people buying crop lenses

enjoy your $1000 paper weights when everyone will be rocking full frame next year
>> Anonymous
>>222755
Not everyone wants to shoot full frame, dumbass.
The chances are strongly against the DSLR market ever going 100% full frame, except *maybe* after SLRs become a niche when and if the mirror box is phased out in favor of electronic viewfinders.
>> Anonymous
>>222755
Right, because these lenses will instantly not work at all next year.
>> Anonymous
>>222757

rofl, sure

no one wants to drive a faster, better handling, more luxurious car, let's keep driving that toyota echo FOREVERRR because it's cheap

laff

>>222763

when everyone uses full frame and your shitty crop body dies and no one makes them anymore, yes, they will be $1000 paper weights

people get so insecure when they invest in inferior technology, idiots
>> Anonymous
>>222755
>>222763

you said the same thing last year.

now gtfo troll.
>> Anonymous
wat
>> Anonymous
>>222767
You're the insecure one. Faggots like you feel like you need the newest camera every year or else you won't be able to take pictures. I'm still using a 20D and I probably will for another 2 or 3 years and though you may not believe it, the EF-S lenses will still work on my camera next year.
>> Anonymous
>>222767
1a. Bad analogy is bad, engine size would be a better comparison than type of car.
1b. I can think of plenty of reasons I'd rather drive a small car over a luxury sedan besides cost.

2. Here's five reasons why someone would rather shoot DX over FX. (I hate the terms "APS-C," "crop," and "Full-Frame," so understand those to be inclusive of all "crop" formats and all 36x24mm sensors.)

- More depth of field at a larger, usually sharper aperture.
- Better corner performance with older lenses.
- Smaller, lighter lenses.
- Preference for the fields of view with currently available lenses. For example, 28mm normal instead of 50mm normal. While there is a 43mm lens for the K-mount and 40m and 45mm lenses for the F-mount, EF and A mount users are shit out of luck if they want a wide normal.
- If they shoot sports or wildlife, the crop factor is useful.

People shot 6x4.5 and 6x7 for years with medium format film. People picked 645 for reasons other than cost; many people, in fact, had both 645 and 67 systems. This is no different.
>> Anonymous
that was an expression you moron

the entire crop system is not future proof

lenses last forever, crop lenses won't survive the next generation

enjoy your paperweights
>> Anonymous
>>222778
Why do you think there will be no crop systems past "the next generation?"

Again, people shot 645 and 67 for years. Some systems even shared lenses there. It's the same thing.
>> Anonymous
>>222782

I'm not a star trek fan sorry
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>222788
>> Anonymous
>>222778
no, just no
>> Anonymous
wow, the digitalfags are strong in this thread

i guess after spending thousands in a shitty system you have to believe in it, lol

i'll laugh when the next full frame camera is sub $2000 and you're all fucked because no one wants your shitty paperweights

lol in advance
>> Anonymous
>>222869

You aren't debating. I gave you five reasons why someone would not want full frame. Refute them, or otherwise explain why you think there will be no crop systems in the future, or STFU.

Also, why would I want someone wanting a lens of mine? Or rather, why would someone not wanting my lens be a bad thing?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
sighhh you're so misinformed

i'll humor you

>> - More depth of field at a larger, usually sharper aperture.

you can't stop down a lens lol?

and funny, full frame resolves more detail than your shitty crop sensor, sorry to burst your bubble

>> Better corner performance with older lenses.

lol, old wives' tale to sell crop cameras

see any modern lens compared to an old one on the same camera

like a sigma 50/1.4 and a zeiss 50/1.4

the super futuristic coatings of the sigma and modern lens design beats the shit out of the antiquated zeiss, lol corners

>> Smaller, lighter lenses.

lol, the first thing those faggots with rebels and d40s want is a bigger and better camera body because the ones they have have shitty handling. if you're buying your gear for the size, we shouldn't be having this discussion

>> Preference for the fields of view with currently available lenses.

i don't even know what the fuck that means

you have the same focal range in better lenses than your digital shit

>> If they shoot sports or wildlife, the crop factor is useful.

that's such a shitty excuse, if you're any good you don't need to use that shit to frame your shots, lrn2 composition
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
I'll let you in on a little secret...everyone isn't going to be sporting FF next year. Even if FF prices drop to where crop prices are now, crop with drop in price proportionately. Crop will be here for a while.

Also, it's not the smartest thing to do, but you can make a crop-only lens work on a FF body pretty easily. Performance isn't perfect and it usually will have a lot of vignetting and falloff, but it's not hard to do.

The better corner performance isn't a wives tale at all, either. Do you even know what you're talking about? He said better performance, he didn't say superior to modern lenses.

Better = on fullframe, a lens with overly-soft corners or bad falloff with a good center will have poor performance. On crop, the problems will be largely cropped from the image.

Why do you hate crop so much? Ideally I would prefer to shoot FF with an extra crop body for backup. Crop factor is useful sometimes.
>> Anonymous
ol, okay

they will sell rebels and d40s at $249 at best buy, sure

something's gotta go, and it sure as fuck isn't going to be the legacy 36x24mm system

>> but you can make a crop-only lens work on a FF body pretty easily.

i guess you can still use your $1000 paperweights then lol

let's risk trashing your brand new camera by sticking a technologically inferior lens on it because you made a wrong investment, awesome idea

>> The better corner performance isn't a wives tale at all, either

uhhhh, let's read that great Nikon documentation about the inherent superiority of the DX digital system when using legacy Nikkor lenses and how DX resolution today is good enough

oh wait we can't see those files anymore ever since the FX came rofl

>> Crop factor is useful sometimes

useful != futureproof

i don't mind the "free" "zoom" but when everyone will be rocking full frame, you'll be sorry for wasting your money on a system with no future
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>222899
trashing it? congratulations, you just showed that you have no idea what you're even talking about.

Want to use an EF-S lens on an EF mount? Stick something inside the back of the lens and pop off the ring. Bravo, you now have an EF-S lens that works on EF. The only problem is, you won't be able to use it at its widest because it would protrude too far back and hit the mirror.

So you think because a company says "hey, our FF is better than our crop!" then it must be true, but when they say "Our crop can be useful with lenses with corner problems when viewing in full!" then they're lying? Lolol, selective marketing much? I mean, really, is that the best you have?

And, please, inform us of why one "has to go?" Last time I checked, FF and crop compliment each other perfectly fine. There was a "crop" version of 35mm film too, you know, and I can still get it very easily.
>> Anonymous
>you can't stop down a lens lol?

Yes, and when you do so, you get diffraction. Every lens is soft, you stop it down some, it gets sharper, it hits its sharpest aperture, you stop it down some more, it gets progressively softer again.

The difference is minor, so the advantage of crop is minor, but so are the advantages full frame has.

> full frame resolves more detail than your shitty crop sensor

Resolution != sharpness, although they are related.
Resolution also doesn't really matter to the final picture except at huge prints.
Resolution also comes from the number of megapixels; a ten megapixel full frame chip resolves as much as a ten megapixel crop chip, they'll just be more noise, etc. on the smaller one.

>see any modern lens compared to an old one on the same camera

Sage covered the issue at hand in this debate, but just for the record I fucking hate modern lens freaks. Lenses of all ages are good, including both the lenses you mentioned.

> if you're buying your gear for the size, we shouldn't be having this discussion

So Cartier-Bresson, using a little Leica and a collapsible Summicron, was doing it wrong and should've been toting around a big Hasselblad?

So you think a subject is going to be equally at ease with a small body and lens versus a big pro body with a gigantic f/2.8 zoom in their face?

So you think bigger is always better in handling?
>> Anonymous
>> The only problem is, you won't be able to use it at its widest because it would protrude too far back and hit the mirror.
>> and hit the mirror.
>> and hit the mirror.
>> and hit the mirror.
>> and hit the mirror.
>> and hit the mirror.
>> and hit the mirror.

that's trashing it you retard

and it's not even remotely useful after you crop out the edges. do some research you retard, it works sort of okay on a 1D but it's dumb as fuck to put it on a 5D because the last 2 or 3 mm can be used. hope you don't zoom out lol, bye bye camera
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>222910
Because it's so hard to remember not to use a lens zoomed all the way out, right? You won't trash it unless you're too stupid to remember that it's not fool-proof to do. I'm sorry, but I don't have any sympathy if you screw your camera up because you don't know what you're doing. You don't deserve it in the first place.
>> Anonymous
>>222908Yes, and when you do so, you get diffraction. Every lens is soft, you stop it down some, it gets sharper, it hits its sharpest aperture, you stop it down some more, it gets progressively softer again.

uhhhhhhhhh crop hits diffraction earlier than full frame, ROFL way to fuck up your argument completely

i shouldn't read the rest of your post but i will humor you idiots

>>222908Resolution != sharpness, although they are related.

ughhhh what the FLYING FUCK?

HOW DO YOU MEASURE RESOLUTION? LW/PH, do you even know what the FUCK it means?

being able to resolve MORE lines = SHARPER, holy shit, you're a fucking idiot
>> Anonymous
>you have the same focal range

A 50mm is very different to shoot with than wider normals. There are two wide normals (one 40mm and the other 43) for the K-mount and two for the F-mount (one the same 40mm just in a different mount, the other 45). A limited selection, to say the least, compared to all the 28mms out there. And the other two major mounts don't have a lens in the 40-45mm range.

There aren't too many 75mm lenses, I just know of the three Leica M 75mms, but there's a ton of 50mm that make that nice length when you stick them on a crop.

Etc. Etc.

>digital shit

EVERY CAMERA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS DIGITAL.

> if you're any good you don't need to use that shit to frame your shots, lrn2 composition

What? People use different focal lengths. Some applications generally use very long focal lengths. The crop makes it easier to go longer; one's 300mm becomes a 450mm.

Oh, and one more thing, if the best image quality is so important to you, stop being a pussy and haul out some large format sheet film.
>> Anonymous
>>222916Because it's so hard to remember not to use a lens zoomed all the way out, right?

rofl, i don't even know why you keep insisting on putting your crop lenses on a full frame

oh wait, it's because you don't want to admit they ARE $1000 paper weights

it's not even meant to mount on the fucking camera, only Nikon does it

but no, man, that's such a great argument for you, let's keep using the $1000 paperweights THEY WORK GREAT, just remember not to zoom out LOL, wow, retards
>> Anonymous
>>222917

>uhhhhhhhhh crop hits diffraction earlier than full frame

Wrong, diffraction gets worse faster on smaller formats but the sharpest aperture is always the same.

>HOW DO YOU MEASURE RESOLUTION? LW/PH, do you even know what the FUCK it means?

Yes, how much detail is resolved. That contributes to sharpness, but it is not identical to sharpness.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml

And again, the difference in resolution comes from the size of the file the sensor produces, not the physical size of the sensor.
>> Anonymous
okay dude, let's read what you and i are saying

>> uhhhhhhhhh crop hits diffraction earlier than full frame

the (SMALLER format) hits diffraction earlier than (LARGER format)

and you say

>>222923Wrong, diffraction gets worse faster on smaller formats but the sharpest aperture is always the same.

ROFL, two words

ee diot

you're an idiot, way to prove my point. thanks man HIGH FIVE

>> Yes, how much detail is resolved. That contributes to sharpness, but it is not identical to sharpness.

lol all else being equal, the larger format will resolve more detail HOLY SHIT I JUST BLEW YOUR MIND
>> Anonymous
The sharpest aperture is a physical property of the lens. Say it's at f/11, on both full frame and crop it's at the sharpest it'll be on that format. At f/11, the crop will have more depth of field, perfect for hyperfocal focusing. You get the best overall results here. Stop it down to f/16. The full frame has caught up in depth of field, and both images will be degraded, but the crop will be degraded more. That doesn't matter, because the crop at f/11 gets the best results possible with the same depth of field.

>lol all else being equal, the larger format will resolve more detail

True on film because they're the same thing, but on digital the *file* and not the sensor size is what determines resolution.

Also, way to not address the more important arguments about size and focal length. No one cares about minute differences in sharpness or resolution in the real world.
>> Anoynmous
OP here, holy fuck, this is exactly the kind of thread I wanted to avoid.
>> Anonymous
>>222947
welcome to /p/

24/7