Being a sucker for wide angle I'm considering replacing my 17-40mm with something that would give me an even wider view, either the EF-S 10-22mm or the new Sigma 10-20mm.
But before selling my 17-40 for one of those I'd like to make sure the difference in FOV is significant. Could someone please post a sample of the difference in FOV with the EF-S 10-22 and with the 17-40mm.
The 10-22mm is pretty amazing. Don't get rid of the 17-40mm though, it's a fantastic lens and one day it will become a wide angle very similar 10-22 on a full frame camera.
Thanks to everyone who replied. Now I know for a fact that I want to go wider. The problem: I will need to get rid of my beloved 17-40mm to finance the 10-22mm . Another solution is to wait to see some test of Sigma's new 10-20mm which comes at a lower price.
Cool shots with the 10-22. I've got one coming from Dell with a plan to use it for a vacation and re-sell when I get home.
I know I'll want to keep it, but divorces can get soooo messy.
I understand it was not a fisheye lens. The sample image at 10mm did not exhibit barrel distortion. I wonder if it was correct by PTlens or some de-fish processing, or just the way this picture is.
It's impossible to tell by casual inspection of that image whether it is exhibiting barrel distortion or not, since there are no straight lines near the frame edges.
In any case I have not had any noticeable barrel distortion with my 10-22, but then again I haven't used it to do architecture photography or to take pictures of anything with straight lines near the frame edges.
That is quite a nice comparison of field of view! That 10mm REALLY makes a difference. I thought my 15mm fisheye was wide, but the 10mm is so much wider I can't believe it! Now I'm really dying for the Sigma 10-20 to come out for my 10D.
No, I didn't correct for distortion. Just reduced them all to the same size.
I don't generally correct for landscapes with this lens, like Russ said. I have used this lens a lot to make QTVRs and it definitely needs to be corrected for that. PTLens does a brilliant job though.
I'll have some QTVR samples soon.
The 10-22mm is an excellent lens. When replacing your 17-40, you'll gain the equivalent prime focal lengths of 24mm, 21mm, and of course the ultra wide range between 16-21mm.
Well I'm ready to put my 17-40L back on the market. With the spare cash I'll probably go with the new Sigma 10-20 (pending it performs well - if it doesn't then EFS 10-22) and a Tamron 28-75.
speedbrakesout wrote:
Well I'm ready to put my 17-40L back on the market. With the spare cash I'll probably go with the new Sigma 10-20 (pending it performs well - if it doesn't then EFS 10-22) and a Tamron 28-75.
at the buy & sell forum you might be able to get a 10-22mm for around $650, I did and with hood.
The 17-40 is however a more usefull general purpous lens (27-64 equivalent), the 10-22 gives you an effective 16-35. If you can manage it I'd suggest keeping both.
. Another solution is to wait to see some test of Sigma's new 10-20mm which comes at a lower price.