This is why you should keep a VU filter on the front of your 10-22mm. Kate would not stay still while being photographed. I ended up with lots of nose prints on the filter.
BeeMan458 wrote:
You won't get mad at me if I vote for keeping the image just the way it is
No, of course not. I have my opinion, and you have yours. Gero can do whatever he wants. I'm not telling anyone what to do. I only said it in case Gero is a newbie to digital, or a begginer to photography, and is not aware of his options. It certainly is not a bad image by any means. Just that, if this would be my image, I would have "levelled" it a bit.
Boris, that is a spectacular shot! (You know there is some flare in the shot? Look right in the centre. Of course, you might choose to leave it there - in a way it's "natural" to be there.)
20Dshooter wrote:
Boris, that is a spectacular shot! (You know there is some flare in the shot? Look right in the centre. Of course, you might choose to leave it there - in a way it's "natural" to be there.)
For an ultra wide angle zoom pointing into sun it's near mirraculous that he got that little amount of flare.
20Dshooter wrote:
Does anyone know how the Canon would fare in an into-the-sun shot? Any similar examples from the 10-22?
Yeah the flare can be removed easily from that shot. I've kind of not done that intentionally for you folks to see how Tokina handles it. All in all, we are on the "Canon-mount SLRs" forum If I were posting to "City, still live", I would have removed it, flare is not pleasing on this shot IMHO.
For the zoom, at 12mm, I think the Tokina controls flare quite decently.
As I am ruminating over whether to get a 17 - 40 or 10 - 22 for my 20D, I'd love to see some landscape shots of both. I've seen a few head to head and the L lens of the 17 - 40 seems much sharper. Thanks to you who can help me decide!
BeeMan458 wrote:
MK, is that an image of a Boston Terrier? They're "Da Bomb.!" as in the sweetest personalities.
If it is a BT, BT owners will never be the same.
Thomas, sorry for my late reply. You're pretty close: it's a French Bulldog. BT owners can rest easy once again
psychprof wrote:
As I am ruminating over whether to get a 17 - 40 or 10 - 22 for my 20D, I'd love to see some landscape shots of both. I've seen a few head to head and the L lens of the 17 - 40 seems much sharper. Thanks to you who can help me decide!
I posted a 17-40 shot on the previous page - its the sunset shot in Capetown. I love this lens, although it will be like a 28 on your 20D (i'm shooting with a 1D, so it is less).
psychprof wrote:
As I am ruminating over whether to get a 17 - 40 or 10 - 22 for my 20D, I'd love to see some landscape shots of both. I've seen a few head to head and the L lens of the 17 - 40 seems much sharper. Thanks to you who can help me decide!
the 17-40 does tend to be much sharper. that said...whooptyfriggindoo. i just sold my 17-40 with extreme prejudice because the FOV of the ultrawides just blows it out of the water...even with my 10-22 being not-so-sharp, somewhat flarey, etc.....the thing lives on my camera when i'm working for pay...and i love it to pieces.
i've had a bit of a personal revolution in that regard...away from "sorta good in all ways" lenses to specialized lenses....thus primes when i need sharpness or speed, and long-haul zooms (10-22 and 17-85) when i need versatility. the CA and softness of the zooms...once i swallowed my pride...it just don't matter at all for prints <11x14; and i've been asked for exactly 0 prints >11x14 in the past year. but i've sold bucketloads of sub-22mm and fisheye images.
that said...10-22...great for situational portraits....er......nose-nibbling...
sols wrote:
Thanks, Thomas. I like your second image.
Philipe - those fishy pics are soooo cute!
I'm just loving all these wiiiide shots! It's not a persective you see everyday. I decided, that for every shot in this thread, I'm going to put $1 in my piggy bank for a sweet wide lens. Just don't tell my wife - she'll kick me out of the house!
Hey, I own the 10-22 and I haven't told my wife. I'm finally grateful that she doesn't care for photography. She can't tell that lens from the Sigma 18-125 I sold.
As long as I stay away from large white glass, I'm under the radar!
sols wrote:
[...]
Philipe - those fishy pics are soooo cute!
I'm just loving all these wiiiide shots! It's not a persective you see everyday. I decided, that for every shot in this thread, I'm going to put $1 in my piggy bank for a sweet wide lens. Just don't tell my wife - she'll kick me out of the house! [...]
Yeah, fish-eye is really a cool perspective. But also 'regular' wide angle is nice. I think your idea is neat. You'll be getting a WA-lens pretty fast
So there's another shot so you get your lens even faster not sure about this one, but seeing the vignetting I guess I shot it with the EF 20 mm
I like the vignetting in the pic you posted. Reminds me of the days in the ole darkroom where you burned the corners to prevent the eye from running out the corners; tying the eye into the image.
