Apart from the FL differences, how much better/worse is the 17-40 on FF compared to 10-22? I would imagine that the 17-40 would control the perspective distortion a little better.
However - as an owner of the 10-22, I have learnt to use the perspective distortion creatively for big head photos. How would these photos turn out on 17-40mm FF?
Nick Choy wrote:
I would imagine that the 17-40 would control the perspective distortion a little better.
Just your imagination then ...perspective distortion will be similar.
What many noticed going from crop+10-22 to FF+17-40 is that the 17-40 has worse corner performance until stopped down heavily. Opinions and mileage will vary.
Grant808 wrote:
Just your imagination then ...perspective distortion will be similar.
What many noticed going from crop+10-22 to FF+17-40 is that the 17-40 has worse corner performance until stopped down heavily. Opinions and mileage will vary.
Agreed. Even given the 16-35 II, the 10-22 is arguably Canon's best UWA lens. Assuming the resolution of the smaller sensors delivers for you, then this lens is a gem.
Perspective distortion is solely determined by angle of view, so the 17-40 and 10-22 will deliver approximately equal amounts on their respective maximum sensor sizes.
The 10-22 is indeed a very fine lens. I made good use of it when I had a 20D:
Perspective distortion from lenses providing a similar angle of view should be similar, so your 10-22 and 17-40 should be pretty similar in this regard.
Nick Choy wrote:
Apart from the FL differences, how much better/worse is the 17-40 on FF compared to 10-22? I would imagine that the 17-40 would control the perspective distortion a little better.
However - as an owner of the 10-22, I have learnt to use the perspective distortion creatively for big head photos. How would these photos turn out on 17-40mm FF?
moondigger: I'm real curious where that shot of presumably the Grand Canyon was shot from. The reason I ask is that 10 years ago, I married my wife at a place called Shoshoni Point ... and your picture looks pretty darn familiar.
Unfortunately, that was the dawn of the digital age ... so my images from that special moment are crap ... but the image below looks darn close ... even down to the foliage. I'd love to get a high-res shot of what it looks like these days.
Alek Komarnits wrote: moondigger: I'm real curious where that shot of presumably the Grand Canyon was shot from. The reason I ask is that 10 years ago, I married my wife at a place called Shoshoni Point ... and your picture looks pretty darn familiar.
I'm sorry to say I don't remember which overlook that was. I'm fairly certain it was one of those you can't drive to yourself, on the Grand Canyon National Park bus tour.
Unfortunately, that was the dawn of the digital age ... so my images from that special moment are crap ... but the image below looks darn close ... even down to the foliage. I'd love to get a high-res shot of what it looks like these days.
I'll look through my files and see if I find something from the same spot.
Alek, I just checked your web page, and found this:
...a remote location called Shoshoni Point that has a 330 degree view, but is only accessible via a long, difficult, private trail...
Unfortunately, that rules out any of the locations I shot from. I had my children with me, and we stuck to easier trails. Therefore I'm certain I don't have anything from Shoshoni Point. Sorry...
moondigger wrote:
Alek, I just checked your web page, and found this:
Unfortunately, that rules out any of the locations I shot from. I had my children with me, and we stuck to easier trails. Therefore I'm certain I don't have anything from Shoshoni Point. Sorry...
I wrote that to discourage people from over-using this vantage point ... it was actually a short walk - no more than 1/2 mile on trail ... and very doable with kids. Compare the pictures - it really, really does look like they match!
There's a certain similarity, but I'm fairly certain there wasn't a 330 degree view there. Remember too that my shot above was done at 17 mm; it's doubtful yours was done with anything close to that wide, so ironically enough, the fact that they look similar suggests they probably aren't the same place. I'll look through my files for something that might match, though.
I followed up in PM, but for anyone else reading this, I'm pretty certain (it's been ten years!) that the picture above was actually taken on the South Rim near the main visitor center, etc.
Thanks for the clarification... I'm now fairly certain I have nothing from Shoshoni Point. However, I think maybe your other shot was taken near where mine were. I know for sure that it was definitely on the bus route, west of the visitor's center, in the area visitors are prohibited from driving themselves. Here's the shuttle bus stop near that overlook:
Boonen wrote:
Those big head photos are awful, why would you do portrait with a UWA
I appreciate your comments! But as you would know, photography is as much an art form as anything else. Big heads are something that is cute in asian culture - I'm sure you've seen many comics where they have big heads and tiny bodies.
Well, using an UWA lens in the right way can emulate this.
Not all portraits have to be shot to carry the same "correct" perspective.
Nick Choy wrote:
Apart from the FL differences, how much better/worse is the 17-40 on FF compared to 10-22? I would imagine that the 17-40 would control the perspective distortion a little better.
However - as an owner of the 10-22, I have learnt to use the perspective distortion creatively for big head photos. How would these photos turn out on 17-40mm FF?
Thanks.
When you were doing those "Big Head" photos, what focal range worked best for those? I have the 10-22mm as well, and always wondered how that type of photo was done. (you often see big head pix used in advertising).
It's not so much the focal length as it is the shooting angle and lens-subject distance. You end up using a short focal length because otherwise you don't have a wide enough field of view to get the body and legs in the frame.
...perspective distortion will be similar. 
