Wide angle

[Tea]

Uh-oh. I can feel another credit card abuse session coming on.

I'm still firmly undecided about a macro lens, and even more firmly undecided about a walkabout lens, though I might just stay with the Canon 18-55 I got more or less free with the camera - it works fine. I'll wait a while and see what happens on the macro front. (And in the back of my mind I'm thinking TS/E.)

But right now I'm getting itchy credit card fingers ..... that 18mm at the wide end of the 18-55 is letting me do things I've never been able to do with a camera before, opening up places I've not previously felt able to get down on film ... er ... I mean flash card. And I'm getting the hots for a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. 10mm! Better than 100 degrees field of view!

I think I'm in lust.

Gripping firmly onto my remaining sanity with both paws, I thought I'd post and ask if people thought this was a good idea.

 

[Buck]

Sold to the orange ball of fur! I think that lense is a great idea. It should make for some wonderful panoramic shots. I look forward to seeing some of them.

 

[Handruin]

I found some example pics with that lens and it looks good so far. Is 10mm borderline fisheye, or is it exactly that? I know there is a 1.6x for the 20D putting it at 16, but that still seems like there is room to go lower?

 

[Pradeep]

To me fisheye is a full 180 degree field of view. Personally I think there is more fun to be had at the wide end of the spectrum. Plus I'm sure Tony is sick of telescoping itty bitty things that are miles away.

 

[Pradeep]

Something like this (on a full frame sensor)

 

[Pradeep]

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7321

I'm losing it.

 

[Gilbo]

Well, fisheye doesn't necessarily imply any particular focal length, although all fisheye lens are very short focal length lenses. Fisheye is actually used to describe a lens that is designed with not attempt to correct the image to make straight lines straight. That's the best way I can put it anyway. You can have rectilinear lenses with very short focal lengths, equal to some fisheye lens, but they suffer a variety of image quality complications because they're much harder to make and they're typically more expensive for the same reason.

Of course, fisheye lens don't reproduce straight lines. The impose severe image distortion. Depending on the subject the effect can be rendered less noticeable or even pleasing. Finally software can very capably correct for this distortion and provide you with a corrected rectilinear picture. This sacrifices resolution at the outer edges.


If I recall correctly I believe an 8mm focal length on a full frame camera gives a 180 degree FOV. Sigma sells such a lens I believe. Nikon has a 10.5mm. I don't know what Canon sells (I vaguely remember a 15mm or something?).

 

[Gilbo]

LOL. I should probably have checked Pradeep's link before posting. 15mm it is.

 

[Gilbo]

Just to make clear: I mean that Canon sells a 15mm Fisheye, not a 180 degree FOV.

I'll just add, to make this post a little more useful, that FOV on a fisheye differs slightly from FOV on a rectilinear lense of the equivalent focal length. There's an excellent article online which demonstrates this. I'll have to wait till Saturday to dig it up though. I can't find it right now, and I have to go.

 

[LunarMist]

Just to make clear: I mean that Canon sells a 15mm Fisheye, not a 180 degree FOV.

I'll just add, to make this post a little more useful, that FOV on a fisheye differs slightly from FOV on a rectilinear lense of the equivalent focal length.

The focal length of a fisheye lens decreases from the center to the edge. Essentially it is a form of severe barrel distortion. The Canon 15/2.8 does have a 180° angle of view, but only on the diagonal.

Canon Rectilinear 14/2.8: 104° H, 81° V, 114° D
Canon Fisheye 15/2.8: 142° H, 92° V, 180° D

It is nothing compared to the old 6mm Nikkor fisheye - a huge beast with 220° angle of view! of course it did not cover a full 35mm frame. The shortest rectilinear lenses for the 35mm format are around 12mm.

 

[Pradeep]

I have one of these for my elderly Nikon Coolpix:

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=77&productNr=25615#

 

[LunarMist]

Tony,

Since 18 mm on a 1.6x sensor is often not wide enough, Canon developed the 10-22 to be very similar to the 16-35 on a 35 mm body. As you already own the 100-400, a good choice would be to add the 10-22 and the 24-105 IS. Of course the 17-85 is the other option, but 17 mm is not much wider than 18 mm and the 24-105 is a better lens than the 17-85. It all depends on the number of lenses you are willing to carry. Except for the 24-70/2.8 at least the wide zooms are not too large or heavy.

 

[Stereodude]

I have a 17-40L F4 and it's a great lens for my 10D. For most practical usage I just can't see needing anything much wider. But, I guess if wide angle lenses are your thing...

 

[LunarMist]

17 mm on the 1.6x sensor is about 28 mm in the 35 mm format. It is wide enough for general use but not wide enough for many landscapes, interiors, and travel. In the 70s the widest lens I had was a 28/2.0 Nikkor and it seemed to be wide enough most of the time. :lol: Later I switched to a 24 mm, which is wide enough for most purposes. The 16-35 on a 20D is close to being wide enough, but I only use it on FF bodies.

 

[Stereodude]

17 mm on the 1.6x sensor is about 28 mm in the 35 mm format. It is wide enough for general use but not wide enough for many landscapes, interiors, and travel. In the 70s the widest lens I had was a 28/2.0 Nikkor and it seemed to be wide enough most of the time. :lol: Later I switched to a 24 mm, which is wide enough for most purposes. The 16-35 on a 20D is close to being wide enough, but I only use it on FF bodies.

Well, it seems most of the time I'm taking portrait type pictures and the 17-40 on a 1.6x camera gives a 27mm, and that doesn't tend to be too flattering, so going wider would be pointless. With my Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 I often found myself cursing that it would go wide enough during other uses. I haven't really found myself doing that with the 17-40L.

So, for now it's wide enough.

 

[Pradeep]

Looks like the 24-105mm has been recalled for fixing:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/co...ct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11924

No parts till the 14th November tho

 

[LunarMist]

I was lucky enough to get one of the early ones before production was halted. I hesitate to send it in for fear of Canon service f*ckup. I''ll probably wait until next summer.

 

[LunarMist]

Apparently Canon is simply replacing the early lenses with new ones rather than repairing them. I guess there were not that many sold and it is easier for Canon to eat the cost. I wonder if someone in Japan got fired.

 

[Tannin]

I can tell you, someone is going to get fired.

Bloody Tea! After much umming and erring, we finally decided what to do about a second camera. I originally wanted to wait and see what Canon do about updating the 20D in the new year (rumour has it that they will announce a replacement for the 20D in February). Then, either way, we were onto a good thing. Either (a) the 20D replacement is a winner, in which case we buy one, or (b) the 20D replacement doesn't appeal, in which case we buy a second 20D on sale during the run-out period and save a dollar. It was a good plan, but Tea really didn't want to wait that long. (OK, neither did I.)

Then someone suggested a different idea: seeing as we don't need the 20D speed for landscapes and macros, only for birds, why not buy a 350D? Image quality is close enough to the same, it's a bit smaller and lighter (which is good), it takes the same lenses, and it's $800 cheaper. Then, if the 20D replacement looks good, we can sell the 350D (dropping some dollars on it, naturally), and replace it with the new model. Or not, as circumstances warrant. Or better yet, Belinda can have the 350D to replace her Nikon Coolpix 5700 (she will appreciate the smaller lighter form as compared to the 20D).

All of this seemed logical. So I left Tea to get on with it. This time, instead of buying from the local shop, we had decided to buy from a guy in Albany, Western Australia who imports grey market Canon gear direct from the states. This means no Canon Australia warranty applies, you have to ship to the USA where Canon USA cover it, but the prices are way lower.

Example: my 100-400L lists for $3500. I paid $3000. I might have been able to pick one up from an ultra-discount place for $2850 or so. Maybe. This guy sells it for $2600. On a 500mm f/4 the saving is much more significant - about $3000 compared to best Australian street price, more again compared to list. (Not that anyone pays list.) In short, I could almost see affording to buy a 500 f/4 (which I have my heart set on) from this guy, where the extra $3000-4000 buying it locally puts it out of reach.

Were we comfortable buying a grey market product? Well, we liked the fact that he makes no bones about it: he's perfectly up-front about the whole proceedure, so I wanted to buy a few smaller items (a lens or two, let's say) to test the waters then, if we were happy, go for the 500 f/4. Seems like an honest operator.

Having sorted that out, I switched off the sensibly, cynical, practical part of my brain and left Tea in charge, told her to buy a 350D from him.

Anyway, I turned my back for 5 minutes and bloody Tea completed the transaction allright ..... but she bought a 20D! Her excuse, apparently, is that she rang the guy up and talked it over with him and he, in a dissapointed sort of way, said that he didn't think we would be happy with the 350D after having got used to the 20D, largely because the autofocus isn't up to the same standard, but also because of a number of other more minor factors to do with the controls and options. Better to save up and get another 20D or see what the replacement is.

So, Tea being Tea, she incontinently ordered a 20D instead! It's in the post now.

Nor was she content with stopping there. The guy in Albany volunteered to send a 10-22 lens over on approval - no charge for the time being, have a play with it and either return it in the original packaging or send some more money over.

................


This is what happens when you share brainspace with an ape.

(Of course, there is zero chance we won't like the 10-22. There is another $1100 I won't see again.)

(Again? I haven't seen that $1100 for the first time yet!)

Sigh

 

[Handruin]

When you get the 10-22mm, can you share a few example shots of how wide it is? I'm still contemplating the 70-200mm f/2L that Lunar suggested. I might be entering the same poor house shortly. 8)

 

[LunarMist]

I predict that Tony will also have a 24-105/4 IS soon.

 

[Tannin]

Probably not that soon, Lunar Mist. It seems to be the obvious companion to my yet-to-arrive 10-22, but several things are likely to conspire together to delay it for a while. The most significant of these could well be the heavy-duty giant economy size iron ball and chain I just welded onto Tea's left rear paw. Some more on the other factors in a moment.

Doug, no problem. I'll post some examples about this time next week. (Assuming the lens and camera arrive sometime this week, and I get to go away to try them out next weekend.)

Why not a 24-105 right away?

First, the price. It's $2000 AU. Even Tea's man in Albany isn't discounting it yet - he's something like $25 less than Canon's list, where with other $2000 products he is hundreds of dollars lower. Sounds like sitting back and waiting till the shine wears off the new product might save me quite a few bucks.

Second, it's not a size range I actually seem to use much. I know it's smack bang in the middle of the "normal" usage range, but I essentially only do three things, rarely anything else:

Birds: 400mm+ is good, and more is better. The need to save up for a 500 f/4 is putting a major crimp in my spending on other things right now! (Now you know why I'm so pissed off with Tea at the moment. I really didn't need to spend another three thousand bucks this week.)

Landscapes: the 18mm end of my 18-55 kit lens is a good size, and wider would often be better. I do use the other (55mm) end as well from time to time, but not nearly as often. At present, a lot of my landscape shots seem to be based on the simple theory: "get up close to something interesting in the foreground, use the widest angle I can". This produces nice results, and "feels right" to me. Only rarely do I feel the need for more than the 55mm end of the kit lens. I've used the 100mm of the 100-400 for these things now and then, but to my eye, most of the shots seem too spatially "flat" - the excessive telephoto removes too much depth perspective. (Sometimes that is nice, but not very often.)

Doug, I imagine that your 17-85 would be a better tool for this job. Likewise a 24-105, no doubt, but at this stage I am feeling that my primary tools for landscapes will be the 10-22 and (at least for now) the 17-55.

Wildflowers and assorted very small creatures is my third subject. This is the big hole right now. Clearly, a macro lens is on the agenda. I think something around 80mm would be about right. From a little experimentation with the 100-400 and a cheap close-up lens set, the 100 on a 1.6 crop is a little too much a lot of the time (though it's hard to tell, as the sheer size and weight of the 100-400 makes everything a bit weird). Using the 17-55, I seem to gravitate towards the long end. Tentative conclusion: something around 70 or 80 mm would suit me pretty well. Front-runner at present would be the Canon EF-S 60 F/2.8. Maybe a tad too short, but reasonably priced, it gets good reviews, and it's short enough to use for low-light landscapes at a pinch. It's compatible with the fancy Canon macro flash systems too.

What's missing? (Apart from a great big pile of money to pay for all this stuff, I mean?) Something around about a "normal" length that's really sharp and works well in low light: i.e., a 30-odd mm prime. No mad hurry for this. Maybe I'll get the F/1.8 50mm instead, largely because it's practically free.

And another of Tea's little fantasies - one that she is entirely capable of putting into action the moment I turn my back for an instant - a TS/E lens for really amazing landscapes. The 24mm one seems like the one to have for landscape work. On the other hand, I've seen what people can do using these little things for wildflowers, which implies the 45mm or the 90mm one.

And then there is Belinda's favourite subject - really small things. There are lenses for this too.

Anyone want to borrow a small ape for a year or two? I don't think I can afford to have her around the place much longer.

 

[LunarMist]

The 90TSE focuses to 1:2 and image quality is very high. It would be useful for the tighter flower shots. The tilting is somewhat useful at the closest setting but more so at a greater distance. On 35mm the 45TSE is commonly used the field of the flowers in the foreground and sharp background to infinity. It sounds like the 60 would be right for your immediate needs, but for small insects and animals the 100 would be more appropriate. Why Canon decided to make such a simple lens as the 60 macro in EF-S only is beyond me.

 

[Stereodude]

Just get a 5D, then you won't need ultrawide angle lenses. A 5D and 17-40L would be a serious combination for the wide angle shooter in you.

 

[LunarMist]

Tony has good plan. The 5D does not fit in well with his usage of long lenses. It has the lowest resolution of any current Canon DSLR (equal to the 1D MK II at 8.2 µm), whereas the 20D has the highest resolution, albeit in a smaller sensor.

 

[Stereodude]

Tony has good plan. The 5D does not fit in well with his usage of long lenses. It has the lowest resolution of any current Canon DSLR (equal to the 1D MK II at 8.2 µm), whereas the 20D has the highest resolution, albeit in a smaller sensor.

Sorry, but 12MP is higher than 8MP no matter how you slice it. Now the 20D might have the higest resolution per sensor size, but it is not the highest resolution resolution.

 

[Handruin]

Take a look at Lunar's post here.

 

[Handruin]

fwi, I know what you're saying...just wanted to add his link as reference.

 

[Tannin]

12MP is higher than 8MP no matter how you slice it

Not in this case, Sterodude. Assume you have a subject that fills half the height of the field of view of a 20D/350D. (You are doing really, really well to get that close to a songbird with any lens small enough to hand hold, such as something in the 400mm class.)

With the 20D you are laying 1/4 of the available pixels on the bird (the rest get cropped out in post processing). 8.2MP * 0.5 (half the height) * 0.5 (half the width) = 2.05 effective megapixels.

Now, assume that the bird stays put, and you use the same lens from the same spot but with a 5D this time. You have more MP to start with (12.8) but the same bird at the same distance now occupies only 0.3125 of the available height, and the same amount of the width. 12.8MP * 0.3125 * 0.3125 = 1.25MP. With a 1Ds Mk II, by the way, you get 1.63 effective megapixels.

'd had the same thought originally - that a 5D might suit me better, but Lunar posted to demonstrate otherwise to me.

 

[Stereodude]

12MP is higher than 8MP no matter how you slice it

Not in this case, Sterodude. Assume you have a subject that fills half the height of the field of view of a 20D/350D. (You are doing really, really well to get that close to a songbird with any lens small enough to hand hold, such as something in the 400mm class.)

With the 20D you are laying 1/4 of the available pixels on the bird (the rest get cropped out in post processing). 8.2MP * 0.5 (half the height) * 0.5 (half the width) = 2.05 effective megapixels.

Now, assume that the bird stays put, and you use the same lens from the same spot but with a 5D this time. You have more MP to start with (12.8) but the same bird at the same distance now occupies only 0.3125 of the available height, and the same amount of the width. 12.8MP * 0.3125 * 0.3125 = 1.25MP. With a 1Ds Mk II, by the way, you get 1.63 effective megapixels.

'd had the same thought originally - that a 5D might suit me better, but Lunar posted to demonstrate otherwise to me.

You and Lunar are trying to argue through the assumption that you're going to use the same lenses on both cameras.

I posted a simple fact. 12 is greater than 8.

If we are talking about wide angle lenses, which is precisely what my post was about, I stated that a 5D + a 17-40L would likely be a better combo than a 20D and a 10-22. You will get more resolution with a 5D and a 17-40L than a 20D and a 10-22. You have the same effective coverage at the wide end, and 50% more MP.

As to your and Lunar's point, unless I missed something the smaller the photosites on the camera the better your chances are of the camera outresolving the lenses. If the 20D has the smallest photosites it is most likely to outresolve the lens. However on the converse side a FF camera doesn't have the advantage of only using the sweet spot of the optics in the lens.

Which is better? Well that depends what you're using the camera for.

 

[Tannin]

Which is better? Well that depends what you're using the camera for.

I agree entirely. My primary usage is long lens work, where the 20D is clearly the best Canon available at any sensible price, and arguably the best available at any price. (Me, I'd swap a few megapixels less on the bird for the vastly more capable autofocus and all-round ruggedness of the 1Ds Mk II. But not at 7 times the price! I could buy a lot of lens for AU$14,000.)

Lunar and I are assuming that I'll be using the same lenses, for the simple reason that we both know I'll be using the biggest and best telephoto I can possibly afford at the time. That's the primary task. And although the second camera isn't intended for long lens work, it is still a consideration because it will act as a spare.

I'm not sure how much value I'd have got out of a 5D. The resolution is a little higher (for normal and wide angle work, I mean, not telephoto), but not enormously so. Apparently it doesn't produce dramatically different high-ISO ability or noise reduction either. Better, but worth 2.5 times the price of a 20D? Clearly not in my case. Depends on what you are using it for, as you say. People say it's brilliant for weddings and the like where you want to get the ability to blow up individual faces in a group shot. That makes sense to me. But for my tasks, I'm better off to put the extra $3000 (just under) into lenses. Think of it this way: for my AU $5000 I can have:

a: A 5D and no lenses at all (I can't even use my existing 18-55 on it).
b: A 20D, a 10-22, a 60mm macro, and any TS/E I like.

unless I missed something the smaller the photosites on the camera the better your chances are of the camera outresolving the lenses

As I understand it, the latest generation of P&S digicams are running into significant resolution problems - their tiny sensors just don't have enough physical size to accommodate all those photosites and actually benefit from them. Not onl;y are they out-resolving their lenses, the noise generated by a small cell is much the same as that generated by a larger one, but the signal generated is much smaller. It seems entirely possible that we will soon see 12MP and 14MP P&S cameras that produce worse pictures than their 5MP and 7MP older brothers.

Oh, but what camera manufacturer would be stupid enough to do that? And what moron would buy one? Well, most of them, probably, and there is no shortage of number-obsessed morons out there in buyer land. Hell, how many performance-challenged Pentium 4 chips did Intel sell before Joe Public finally woke up to the fact that big numbers notwithstanding they didn't cut the performance mustard?

 

[GIANT]

I use an actual bayonet-mount AI 16mm (f/2.8) fisheye lens and a 17mm (f/3.5) ultra-wide angle lens on my Nikon F3 and Nikon D100 camera bodies. I can use filters with these two lenses, but in both cases, they screw onto the *rear* element of the lens.

 

[LunarMist]

I am familiar with the Nikkor 16/2.8 fisheye, but don't think there was a f/2 version.

Several current Canon wide lenses such as the 17-40 and 16-35 have both front threads and a rear bayonet gel filter holder. The front filter requires a thin polarizer on a 35mm body. I don't know if the Canon 10-22 EF-S has a rear gel filter slot, but one would hope so. Otherwise it would not be possible to use more than one filter.

 

[Explorer]

The 16mm is indeed an f/2.8.

Unfortunately, in my original post, the 8 and the following closed parenthetical element combined to become a "funnny face."

2.8 ) ---> 2. 8)

 

[Pradeep]

Apparently Canon is simply replacing the early lenses with new ones rather than repairing them. I guess there were not that many sold and it is easier for Canon to eat the cost. I wonder if someone in Japan got fired.

Yeah we sent our two in last week, we got two brand new ones back today.

 

[LunarMist]

They sent me a new one with a blank warranty card. I wonder how much this f*ckup cost Canon.

 

[Tannin]

You have reminded me to update this, Lunar. The long and the short of the EF-S 10-22mm is that I love it. Fantastic lens, and I can see myself spending a long long time exploring the many new possibilities it brings. I use the 100-400 most of all, of course, but the 10-22 is the lens I love best out of the four I own.

Meanwhile, I've gone quiet on the lens-buying department, largely because Tea is away, but also because I have resolved not to spend anything on cameras until I've saved up enough to get a 500 f/4.

I'm not entirely happy with my in-between arrangements either - i.e., middle focal length lenses. The 18-55 does the job but isn't exactly thrilling, the 60mm macro is an odd length for non-macro work - too short to be long and too long to be wide, if you know what I mean - and I've pondered a pretty fair range of middling zooms but can never decide anything.

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8?
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5?
Canon 24-105 f/4 IS?
Canon 24-70 f/2.8?
Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6?

Dunno. Be interesting to see what reviews the new Sigma gets. I like the range, and the f/2.8 at the wide end. I think I'll just keep on using the 18-55 and see what happens for a while. After the 500 f/4, I'll still need a 1.4 converter, a better tripod than my Manfrotto 055 (the Manfrotto 501 head will probably stay for a while longer), a twin-head macro flash, and a longer macro lens, around 100-150mm I think, or else perhaps the MP-E.

Until all those are taken care of, I guess I'll carry on with the 18-55.

 

[LunarMist]

Unless you need to photograph moving subjects in dim light, the 24-105 IS is the best choice to fit inbetween the 10-22 and 100-400. Then you can leave the 18-55 and 60 when not needed. The 24-105 will also work on a real camera body should you decide to upgrade later. The 24-70 is very nice, but large and bulky. A good copy of the Tamron 28-75 is excellent on a cropped sensor but the AF and handling are annoying. The other wideangle zooms would be optically worse as usual.