I was more than disapointed at my last post on this subject perhaps now we WILL get an answer.
The question is simple. At 13 by 19 inches what looks better, the 1Ds (or 2) at 16mm and f8 or the 20D at 10mm at f8?
I don't want to hear any other considerations of price, fit and finish, AF, hoods or anything else.
Once upon a time I thought I'd always be FULL FRAME and $8K US does'nt really bother me any more. Then came the 20D and it changed my way of thinking becuase of its quality for the weight. Put this machine with the TSE's and it takes away 80% of the needs for FULL frame becuase they deliver more pixels than a standard 1DS2.
So for me 15% of that last 20% comes from the need for a good Ultrawide and no matter how I look at my 16-35L its soft at 16mm on any sized sensor or film.
For those that use their eyes and not their egos the need for full frame has much to do with the quality of the wides that support it. This generates demand that is in turn reflected in the price.
I note that 1Ds2 is selling Grey in Asia for LESS THAN $8000 US already and demand is considered normal. 20D entered the maket at a $150 US premium.
The 16-35 v's 10-22 issue is NOT a trivial one and the newer lens should not be dismissed on the basis that is only EF-S.
.
It's hard to seperate money from the question... Personally I rather full-frame any day. To get a traditional wide angle of 24mm we have buy some relatively exotic glass to have an effective 24mm on a 1.6 body. With those extreme wides like 15, 16 and 17mm comes the distortion. Take a picture of somebody and there nose looks like a TV commercial where the dog charges the camera! I just don't like that look.
On the flip side, I don't like how $7200 for 1DsmkII looks on the credit card. Worse yet, these camera depreciate quickly, leaving you with 50% or less after 24 months... Fine, my 20D will depreciate 50% in 24 months too. But I only paid $1200 for it, so a loss of $600 for 2 years. I can live with that.
In time we'll have very nice full frame dSLRs for $1500 - say 3 to 5 years. Until then I can live with a 20D - class camera. And lens like the 17-85mm IS help balance the playing field. While not the greatest lens, the range and IS do make it attractive.
Just got the 10-22mm yesterday. I own a 20D and a 16-35L from my EOS 3 days.
My problem with the 16-35 was losing the wide angle with the smaller frame size of the 20D.
The alternatives were a 1DS body or a 10-22 lens. I don't think it is realistic for most of us to leave price out of the considerations, even though you have specifically asked us to. I really only considered the 10-22.
After one day only I am still happy. I can't perform the test you would like, but I can recommend the lens. And since you are not too bothered by USD8000 why not throw AUD1200 at this lens and let us know how you evaluate it?
I would guess that the only people that could answer this question properly are those that own both combinations - the 10-22 with a 20D and the 16-35 and a 1Ds-II.
I'm gonna post to bump this topic to the top of the list. I'd also like to hear very much how this comparison would stack up. Would anyone with those 2 lenses and the 20d / 1Ds please post some comparison pics?
I'll post another bump, with some additional input. In order to compare the two, there has to be some concern for what would be considered the proper equal output. Would there be a standard image size used as the final output? Would the 20D's 8.2 megapixel output be uprezed to match the 1Ds-II's 16.7 megapixels, or would the 1Ds-II be downrezed?
I propose that the final images used to compare, since this is being done on the computer, be set to a pixel size that is equal. For example, post final images of 1800 X 1200 pixels or some such "common ground". Maybe there is a particular size that would be more beneficial.
Hello-I have the 10-22mm and the 20D, and have used the MarkII with the 16-35mm and 17-40mm. I did not have the time to do the extensive testing with the MarkII that has been requested. I did take a few shots with the MarkII and the forementioned lenses, they were what I expected with L series lenses and Canon's best DSLR. The 16-35mm with the 1.3X magnification factor does not fill the fisheye/ultrawide lens void.
The 10-22mm with the 20D has the fisheye/ultrawide focal length that has been missing since the introduction of digital SLRs. Unfortunately, the lens I recieved I felt was very soft and I had some problems with the 20D as well. You can see the tests of this camera/lens HERE or HERE. That gear was sent to Canon and I just got it back yesterday so I'll try to retest it and post the results. I don't think the 10-22mm is going to produce images similar to the L series lenses. You'll have to decide which is more important; the wide focal lengths or the higher quality images. I think the images made with the 10-22mm will be more than acceptable after a run through the computer.
If you can live with 10-22 on 20D, then you will get bonus 1.6x on the tele side, which is kind of nice for someone who can not afford those big guns (like me).
What type of image quality are we looking at though ? Action shots, tripod mounted landscape shooting, architectual work etc ?
Even once we get the image size from the different bodies to a comparible basis, theres still so many factors that can come into play that a comparison is tough. DOF is of course different on full frame though not to a huge degree. Certainly less than a digicam vs DSLR but its the same concept.
The 16-35 is also faster and depending on the subject that can make or break a shot so Id assume that you'd make sure to test each at the same apeture but then thats defeating a reason someone would buy a 2.8 zoom.
Then theres issues of the AF abilites of each camera. Lets just say that both can give a great performance but depending on what your subject is, 16mm on a FF 1 series body vs 10mm for 16mm equiv on a 20D or Drebel may or may not produce the same results due to the camera's abilities.
Basically, If I owned a 1Ds mkII and wanted a WA lens, Id just go and buy a 16-35, I wouldnt go and buy myself a 20D and a 10-22 just for the WA, that makes no sense at all really.
At the same time, if I had a 20D and wanted WA, Id probalby go buy a 10-22, It wouldnt make sense to go buy a nearly $8k camera and a $1300 lens just for that reason.
Bottom line is that you cant judge equipment objectively without giving some though to how useful is it, what are its benifits and related cost, how portable is it, how much can you afford to spend, what other features does it offer etc.
Its just not that simple. I can take a shot with my LF camera and a shot with my MKII and yes I can compare the image quality alone but where do I go from there ? I like the image quality of the LF better but thats not the end of the story. The LF is slow and ackward, I have to get the film processed, its expensive, I have to scan it, I have no real previews, theres no AF, I can only carry a few film holders at a time, I need a seperate meter etc etc etc
Image quality is just one chapter out of a the whole story
Wiseman wrote:
At f/8, 10-22 on 20D will embarrass 16-35 on 1Ds according to Canon's MTF charts.
Id wait til I see some hard evidence on this one, not Canons theoretical MTF's.
Ive owned and used all of the current L zooms and generally speaking by f8 they perform as well as any of my other L primes.
This 10-22 would have to be one amazing lens to still have an "embarrassingly" large advantage over another high quality zoom lens at f8 if the zoom is already at the quality of a good prime.
I think it is entirely possible that 10-22 is much better than 16-35 because of the shorter focus distance in the back. Shorter focus distance in the back is one of the motivation Canon created EF-S. For this reason alone, I won't consider those third party APS-sized wide angle lens like: Tamron 11-18 or Tokina 12-24.
I believe that this is still a valid question, given that the EF-S mount is specifically made to reduce problems induced by light hitting at obtuse angles to the sensor. Also, given that the 1Ds used is dropping pretty fast, it may well be worthwhile as a second hand purchase for serious WA users.
I do not have 1Ds or 1DS MK2 only the 1D MK2 and 20D. I have the 17-40L lens which I found to be a little sharper than the 16-35L and I kept the 17-40L.
I just received the 10-22 EF-S lens and this lens knocked my socks off. This lens is noticeably sharper and has less CA at all corresponding focal lengths and F stops using the 17-40L on both cameras for comparison.
I had many wide angle zooms (even the famous Nikkor 17-35 AF-S) but I would venture to say that this 10-22 EF-S lens is far the best wide angle zoom I have ever owned. I am extremely pleased with the results.
Julius
Julius, I hope you are right. Even though I own the 10-22mm, my first response would be to say that the L series lenses will produce the best images with Canon cameras. I've used L series zooms with 35mm cameras for years, in my view they are the best lenses Canon makes.
Since lenses are production items, the quality will vary from production run to production run. It's inevitable that a percentage of the lenses will be slightly better than the others and a percentage will be slightly worse than the others, while the majority are in between. The 10-22mm I recieved was not good at all, sounds like you recieved one of the blue ribbon specials, especially if the results are comparable with L series lenses. I think the Canon recalibration of my lens and camera will take care of those original problems.
The fisheye/ultrawide lens and smaller, but quality camera is precisely what I need to do my work. The better the quality of the images right out of the camera means less post production work, but I need that fisheye and superwide angle lens so I'll make it work.
Well guys thanks for your responses but alas still no REAL results. For those Australians reading I HAVE a 10-22 and the hood and will test both on the 20D in due course but I'm still intersted in those corners on the full frame.
What the full frame users of these forums miss time and time again is that the TSE's allow you the resolution of the 1Ds2 on a 20D in many static situations and with things like sport and much fashion 17MP does'nt matter.
Much of the battle ground is in the landscape wide end beyond the angle of the 24TSE . Anybody who has seriously used the 16-35L for landscapes has to see that huge MTF drop, the lens is not acceptable below 20mm in the corners of FF. I would not just "bolt on" the 16-35 without thought becuase the results are in many cases unacceptable.
Now surely we have a 1Ds2 user with a16-35 that packs a 20D when reduced weight is required for air travel and wants the same angle covered. Are there STILL no respondants?
Now
After reading your first post and the TITLE of your post, you sound like you are going to post some photos. Then I read again, it's turned out that you ask agressively people for a comparison between 20D+ 10-22mm vs 1DS 2 + 16-35m.
Why don't you post some photos of your 20D + 10-22mm and 20D + 16-35mm and give us some evaluation of the center of 16mm@f8 and 16mm@f8 photos? since you have both lens.
That's more realistic and I would love to see it because I have 20D and intent to buy 10-22mm
I will do the 16mm comparison when I get home next week but it does'nt really prove much becuase I'm only interested in what the customer sees in the print and that means you need a different focal length and the 1Ds2 which I don't have.
On the 16-35 issue the centre is indeed sharper but I was never impressed with the lens even at 35mm on a 10D or 300D. I have a very fine landscape image taken with that combination but I can't print it larger than about 10 by 15 as it goes soft. With a 135 f2.0L I don't hesitate to make 44 inch prints from even a 300D. I have an Epson 9600 and 7600 and on these machines what you see at actual pixels is reality in the print.
So the results will be posted next week.
Also my NEXT purchase will be the 35mm f1.4L and its comparison to the 16-35L. I'm very intersted to see these two back to back at f8 on a 20D.
By the way of all my wides the best is easily the 15 f2.8 Fish. I have the Sigma
and on the 20D is outstanding even at 36 inchs.
Bruceconnelly wrote:
Also my NEXT purchase will be the 35mm f1.4L and its comparison to the 16-35L. I'm very intersted to see these two back to back at f8 on a 20D.
