Testing the 10-22

John MuellerJohn Mueller Registered Users Posts: 2,555 Major grins
edited August 9, 2005 in Landscapes
I purchased a Tamron 11-18 and it sucked.Had vignetting upper right and ca out the.......Cant find sigma's new lens so I returned the Tamron and got a Canon 10-22.
Me likes it:D
Couple of quick shots.

f6.3

29978292-M.jpg


f8.0
29978308-M.jpg

Comments

  • USAIRUSAIR Registered Users Posts: 2,646 Major grins
    edited July 27, 2005
    John
    Never got a chance to compare the lenes but I do like my Canon 10-22 icon10.gif
    It's a very fun lens.
    I haven't figured out all uses for the lens but up close it's great.
    Also with a lens that wide you have to be careful with a polarizer ( you get some strange skies sometimes)

    Can't wait to see more shots from you and the 10-22 clap.gif

    Thanks
    Fred
  • erich6erich6 Registered Users Posts: 1,638 Major grins
    edited July 28, 2005
    What polarizer do you have on it? Looks great.
  • John MuellerJohn Mueller Registered Users Posts: 2,555 Major grins
    edited July 28, 2005
    erich6 wrote:
    What polarizer do you have on it? Looks great.
    Noneicon10.gif
    My moniter profile was messed up.....................ne_nau.gif
    Thanks guys
  • windozewindoze Registered Users Posts: 2,830 Major grins
    edited July 31, 2005
    nice quick shots....... glad u like this wide baby!
    look forward to your w-i-d-e posts!!!


    troy
  • gluwatergluwater Registered Users Posts: 3,599 Major grins
    edited August 1, 2005
    USAIR wrote:
    Never got a chance to compare the lenes but I do like my Canon 10-22 icon10.gif
    It's a very fun lens.
    I haven't figured out all uses for the lens but up close it's great.
    Also with a lens that wide you have to be careful with a polarizer ( you get some strange skies sometimes)

    Can't wait to see more shots from you and the 10-22 clap.gif

    Thanks
    Fred
    I agree that it is a great lens and also that you have to be careful with the polarizer. By strange skies I'm assuming you're refering to something like this??
    30476771-S.jpg

    Nick
    Nick
    SmugMug Technical Account Manager
    Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
    nickwphoto
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,245 moderator
    edited August 1, 2005
    The eyes and brain are amazing things. They make differences in light and color make sense. Take white balance for example... your brain says something is white when it really isn't. You know it's white, so your brain interprets it as so. Blue skies are like that too.

    If you look around 360º at a blue sky, it might all look the same brightness on a sunny day. Not so. You brain compensates. But take a 360º photo (even without a polarizer), and you'll likely come up with something that has darker areas 180º apart, and lighter areas opposite the darker areas.

    Now, say, you also place a polarizer on such a wide image, and you compound that difference even more. Usually, the effect is too much, and the brain says "Hey, that doesn't look right. Something's way wrong with that blue sky."

    Wide images (of skies) look strange enough the way the blue light is scattered to not use a polarizer filter to add to the effect.

    A polarizer used on a semi-wide image of glass or water (any reflective surface) is a better use of that filter, IMO.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • USAIRUSAIR Registered Users Posts: 2,646 Major grins
    edited August 4, 2005
    Nick
    gluwater wrote:
    I agree that it is a great lens and also that you have to be careful with the polarizer. By strange skies I'm assuming you're refering to something like this??
    30476771-S.jpg


    Nick
    Yes that is exactly what I am talking about
    Cool photo too :D

    Fred
  • USAIRUSAIR Registered Users Posts: 2,646 Major grins
    edited August 4, 2005
    David
    David_S85 wrote:
    The eyes and brain are amazing things. They make differences in light and color make sense. Take white balance for example... your brain says something is white when it really isn't. You know it's white, so your brain interprets it as so. Blue skies are like that too.

    If you look around 360º at a blue sky, it might all look the same brightness on a sunny day. Not so. You brain compensates. But take a 360º photo (even without a polarizer), and you'll likely come up with something that has darker areas 180º apart, and lighter areas opposite the darker areas.

    Now, say, you also place a polarizer on such a wide image, and you compound that difference even more. Usually, the effect is too much, and the brain says "Hey, that doesn't look right. Something's way wrong with that blue sky."

    Wide images (of skies) look strange enough the way the blue light is scattered to not use a polarizer filter to add to the effect.

    A polarizer used on a semi-wide image of glass or water (any reflective surface) is a better use of that filter, IMO.
    Thank you for the very good explanation of this.
    Looks cool in some photos but in some not so cool icon10.gif

    Thanks
    Fred
  • gluwatergluwater Registered Users Posts: 3,599 Major grins
    edited August 4, 2005
    Thanks Fred :D
    Nick
    SmugMug Technical Account Manager
    Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
    nickwphoto
  • aurafloraauraflora Registered Users Posts: 471 Major grins
    edited August 9, 2005
    I have heard that it is an excellent lens and you will have fun with those wide angles.


    I perfer the second horizonal frame. Better perspective, I feel.

    Looking forward to seeing more results with the 10-22.

    Michal
Sign In or Register to comment.